Transparency data

PABEW meeting minutes, 27 October 2022

Updated 2 April 2024

Applies to England and Wales

Members present via video conference

• Independent Chair – Julia Mulligan

• PABEW Secretariat – Chris Moore

• National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) – Kevin Courtney

• Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW) –Calum Macleod, Gemma Fox, Gemma Lofts (in attendance) and Karen Pinfold (in attendance)

• Police Superintendents’ Association (PSA) – Dan Murphy, Paul Griffiths, Duncan Slade

• Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association (CPOSA) – Gareth Wilson and Shabir Hussein

• Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC) – Andrew Tremayne

• National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) – Claire Alcock, Stella Brooks and Nicholas Barker

• Home Office (HO) – Frances Clark, Emma Plummer and Sally Hasselby

• Government Actuary Department – Robert Fornear (GAD)

• College of Policing (CoP) – Thomas Grove, Judith Whitaker

• Met Trade Union – Valerie Harris

• Department of Justice Northern Ireland (DOJNI) – Amanda Montgomery

• Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) – Stephen Oakley

• His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Service (HMICFRS) – Christopher Chipchase and Lois Ainger

Welcome and apologies

1. The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and noted apologies from Kathie Cashell (IOPC) and Katherine Riley (HMICFRS).

Minutes of the meeting 9 May 2022

2. Minutes were agreed from the 28 July meeting.

Action Point 1: Secretariat to finalise minutes of 28 July meeting and publish on the webpage.

Action log

3. Action Point 2: Emma Plummer (HO) will work on the draft secondments guidance and follow up with the Chair to discuss how to move forward. The chair noted that action Point 2 was on the agenda and would be discussed at that point.

4. Action point 3: Frances Clark (HO) to assess what information could be shared on the potential financial impact of the FBU/unions cost cap case against the government. Frances Clark (HO) said there was not any new news on the case to feedback to the committee but was open to have a standing commitment to update PABEW on any relevant legal case bulletins during the HO update. The Chair thanked Frances and agreed that would be helpful.

Outstanding action points from previous meeting

5. Action Point 7: (1 February 2022) Frances Clark (HO) to further engage with staff associations on Immediate Detriment. The Chair noted this item was an ongoing action and as it was not a specific action asked if members objected to its being closed.

6. Calum Macleod (PFEW) noted there was certain matters, within litigation but was happy to discuss offline with the HO. Frances Clark (HO) agreed and the action was closed.

Home Office Update: PMAB guidance

7. Frances Clark (HO) said the guidance was withdrawn last month due to inaccuracies. To enable the HO to update it with current practices, they worked closely with Duradiamond to expedite the work. Frances said the schedule for that work was in the process of being completed, and the wording on gov.uk stated that the guidance was out of date. HO was busy working with gov.uk to update it and point people in the right direction.

8. Calum Macleod (PFEW) said that clarification about the status of the guidance was required. He asked whether it had been withdrawn and therefore could not be relied upon or had it been archived but was still suitable for use by PMABs. Clair Alcock (NPCC) said the NPCC had circulated the position that the guidance has been archived and said that it shouldn’t change the position of forces because the outdated guidance had already been criticised in courts. But she noted they had received comments that displayed anxiety about when the guidance would be replaced. Calum Macleod (PFEW) said it was an unsettling process and said it was causing unease within Federated ranks. He said it was critical the HO return with timelines.

9. Gemma Fox (PFEW) asked if the draft guidance would go to the PABEW and or SAB or if they’ll be a separate working group before it’s finalised. Frances explained they would need to talk to HO colleagues about the appropriate route and listen to the views of the NPCC.

Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006

10. Frances Clark (HO) was conscious that a response was outstanding and explained that as part of the consultation data had been requested from forces but the returns were relatively low. The data quality didn’t allow HO to complete the robust analysis needed in the summer. HO had been working closely with NPCC to revise the data requests and reengage with force pension administrators to receive better data. Since receiving that data, GAD had been able to complete the analysis, meaning HO could now prepare and progress the consultation response and return with an expected timescale for when the response would be issued.

11. Frances said she would take an action on the timeline and detail what the process would be moving forward.

Action Point 2: Frances Clark (HO) to explain Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 consultation response and expected timescale.

NHSPS announcement and CPI

12. Frances Clark (HO) explained that the work GAD and the HO had started was at an early stage, and the paper from the HO and set of slides from GAD was where everything currently stood. She explained the agenda item was a request to talk through the flexibilities provided to the NHS pension scheme. The first change addressed the CPI annual allowance interaction. The HO wanted to explore with colleagues on PABEW and SAB whether it could be adopted or if it would cause a detriment. Frances Clark (HO) said Robert Fornear (GAD) would expand further in his presentation.

13. Frances Clark (HO) said the second change was pension recycling which was about using existing flexibilities that were in place in the NHS for allowing people to opt out of the scheme and then negotiate higher non-pensionable pay, which was not an option within the police pay system and therefore irrelevant to the police sector.

14. The third change was described as permanent retirement flexibilities and extending temporary measures. It referred to the introduction of partial retirement and the 16-hour rule, which was within the NHS scheme and also existing interim measures which referred to the extension of temporary abatement measures. Frances said neither translated to the police scheme and that it was worth noting that police scheme managers already have discretion about whether to abate.

Frances Clark (HO) then handed over to Robert Fornear (GAD) to cover the analysis that GAD completed on the CPI annual allowance interaction through the slides circulated before the meeting. Please refer to the slide deck for further information.

15. Clair Alcock (NPCC) said it was incredibly technical and too soon to make any significant comment. She noticed various complexities from an implementation point of view, such as changing the revaluation date but not changing the scheme year. She said she would need to understand the potential impact from software suppliers and administrators and said more comprehensive consultation was required.

16. Frances Clark (HO) agreed; she said HO were still talking to their lawyers about the possibilities and didn’t have prior knowledge that the changes were coming through. Frances appreciated it was a complex issue and said it took some time to work through. She said HO was seeking views on if the change from the NHS was an option that members thought was applicable or desirable for the scheme and how it could be implemented.

17. Shabir said he had previously mentioned the need for worked examples and felt it rested with the employer and not with the HO because it fell under administration. Shabir called for detailed worked examples and for the worked example to include the final salary link and weighted accrual. He said that would benefit the member and ensure all administrators are working to the same equations.

18. Shabir proposed a small technical working group to work through the discussion. The Chair agreed, and Frances asked that whoever thought of any questions email them in advance so they could be prepared.

Action Point 3: Technical Group to be held to discuss NHSPS announcement and CPI annual allowance.

19. Dan Murphy (PSA) asked if the NHS had confirmed it was happening or if it had come to the forefront because the Treasury did not think they could implement it without it being shared across the public sector. Robert Fornear (GAD) responded that it was close to implementation. But the NHS were much further along in the process.

20. Christopher Chipchase (HMICFRS) looked at the broader perspective and said it applied to most care schemes and public sector pensions. He wondered whether Treasury was taking a more generic policy line to avoid every part of the public sector looking at application from a different angle.

21. Robert Fornear (GAD) explained that the NHS came up with the solution, it had been processed, and then Treasury went to all the other schemes that had a CPI link in their care evaluation and explained that it was what Treasury was doing and that you might wish to do it as well.

PABEW secondment guidance

22. Emma Plummer (HO) explained that the HO had recently met with the CoP and HMIC to review their comments on the draft guidance that was circulated earlier in the year, and there was a further meeting planned for the end of November to incorporate their suggestions. They would then look to distribute a revised draft to members in December.

23. The overarching principle was that there would be no disadvantage to secondees, or the arm lengths body and the guidance would set that out. Also agreed at the working group was that secondee bodies were free to publish their own secondee policies alongside the PABEW guidance.

24. Calum Macleod (PFEW) asked if the latest version incorporated PFEW comments that had been submitted previously. Secondly, he asked whether the HO would be coordinating the review by PABEW members and what timescales were the HO working to. Emma said the draft guidance accumulated earlier this year would have incorporated the comments PFEW made some time ago. On the second point, Emma said if HO looked to circulate a revised draft that included the CoP and HMIC comments, they would send that out and collate comments and writing and then if members would find it helpful, HO would convene a meeting in January to discuss the revised draft and hopefully move it on by the end of the financial year.

25. Judith Whitaker (CoP) said she was delighted progress was being made on the issue and stressed the need to finalise everything as soon as possible.

Action Point: 4 Emma Plummer (HO) to circulate revised PABEW Secondment guidance by January 2023.

NPCC Update: NPCC Re-engagement and Retention Policy (Advice note 8)

26. Nicholas Barker (NPCC) explained that the retirement and re-joiner guidance was released in July and was designed primarily to clarify how officers who want to be able to retire and then be reengaged are able to do so. He said it addressed two issues. The first regarded recruitment, in light of uplift and allowing more officers to be retained, but also it was introduced to address the pensions trap. When NPCC released the guidance, it was left for forces to decide how to implement it. NPCC were surveying forces to determine their implementation level and once received, would attend the scheme manager’s board to try and encourage forces to widen the scope of the guidance.

27. Gareth Wilson (CPOSA) noted concerns about the legality for the chief officers and noted Stella had put forward legal advice. Nick said that the legal advice had been submitted and received.

28. Dan Murphy (PSA) said when the consultation for the prospective changes to the pension regulations took place, the PSA was pushing for a response from the HO about regulations around the pensions trap. He said a letter from HO was promised regarding the issue.

29. Frances Clark (PSA) explained on correspondence there had been changes at the ministerial level in the last few weeks, and that coincided with the work that the NPCC was doing to finalise the guidance. HO at official level had provided support for the guidance and believed it was the right approach but would seek further ministerial support if they felt it was required.

30. Dan was concerned that after all the stakeholders looked at it and said there was no issue with the guidance. It would end with 43 different ways of using it and not provide the solution sought after. He felt it needed to go one step further and should be an entitlement to the officer instead of relying on scheme managers to explain how they would adopt it.

31. Gemma Lofts (PFEW) noted the pension trap issue, which included the actuarial reduction and how that was applied, was a big issue for the membership and, despite the fluctuating situation at minister level, would appreciate a catch-up with Frances Clark (HO) which was agreed.

Police Pensions: UK Police Pensions Consultative Forum & Scheme Advisory Board update

32. The Chair explained the last informal SAB meeting on the 6 October was focused on a spreadsheet that Claire Alcock (NPCC) had produced. She remained hopeful that the next meeting would be formal as most parties wanted to reengage.

33. The Chair said that alongside Joanne Livingstone (Fire SAB Chair), she was seeking a meeting with Peter Spreadbury (HO) to discuss SAB matters. The Chair said she would update members separately on that.

34. Calum Macleod (PFEW) asked whether the HO had sought legal advice on the appropriate length of time for consulting on the police pensions remedy.

35. Frances Clark (HO) said they were working according to the government guidance for consultations which was a specific set of processes. Calum Macleod (PFEW) asked when the information regarding the application of interest was likely to be shared. Frances said she would go back and ask. Lastly, Calum asked about the timeline for providing members with the updated slide on how interest is applied. Frances replied that it would arrive shortly.

PABEW Discipline Sub Committee update

36. The Chair explained that Michael Cordy (HO) had attended the meeting to discuss a new review that the Government was undertaking around police dismissals following publication of Baroness Casey’s interim report. The proposed terms of reference had been circulated to sub committee members for comment. The Chair said it was a narrow review focusing on dismissals, not broader issues.

37. The Chair said the next substantive item was an update from the College of Policing on the review of the Code of Ethics. Also, Michael Cordy (HO) provided an update on legislative changes that were being considered around that. After that, there was a discussion about the ongoing LQC’s issue. The Chair said there was evidence that the system was starting to struggle.

38. The Chair noted that it was disappointing that there had been no NPCC representation at the meeting. Stella Brooks (NPCC) said she would find out how that could be rectified.

Home Office legislation update

39. Emma Plummer (HO), there were no issues for PABEW. The HO was currently consulting on amendments to Annex F and Annex U to formally implement the pay award for the year. With regards to matters falling with the Police Consultative Forum’s remit, Emma said the HO was now putting a plan together to tackle the backlog of regulations and determinations.

AOB/date of next meeting

40. The date of the next meeting was confirmed for 2 February 2023.