Transparency data

PABEW meeting minutes, 28 July 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, Jeremy Vaughan

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

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

• Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association (CPOSA) - Gareth Wilson

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

• Home Office (HO) - Frances Clark, Emma Plummer, Ryan Mcelney

• College of Policing (CoP) - Thomas Grove, Sandy Purewal

• Met Trade Union - Valerie Harris

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

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

Welcome and apologies

1. The Chair welcomed Gemma Fox (PFEW) & Calum Macleod (PFEW) to PABEW. Apologies were received from Stella Brooks (NPCC), John Bassett (NALQC), and Kathie Cashell (IOPC). Minutes of the meeting 9th May 2022
2. Minutes were agreed from the 9th May meeting. Action Point 1: Secretariat to finalise minutes of 9th May meeting and publish on the webpage.

Action log of 9th May 2022

The Chair went through the action log of the 9th May meeting, which has been updated due to the discussion. Key points discussed were:

3. Action Point 2: HO to clarify to CPOSA the legal position regarding funding the commutation cap. The Chair and Frances Clark agreed to mark the action as complete following Frances Clark’s (HO) email to Shabir Hussain (CPOSA) on 20th July. Secretariat note: Having read the minister’s letter to the PSA, and following further correspondence with the Home Office, CPOSA are of the view that there has never been a legal power requiring chief constables to fund the difference in the cap from the general police fund.

4. Frances Clark (HO) promised to check the progress of the response to the PSA section 23 letter. She was content to mark the action as complete following a conversation with Dan Murphy (PSA).

5. Action Point 7: Frances Clark (HO) to further engage with Staff Associations on immediate detriment. Frances said they were continuing to look for routes to facilitate immediate detriment payments, whilst noting that the HO withdrew the guidance last year. This includes continuing to consider legal solutions that also work financially for forces. In terms of a timescale, she said the work was primarily focused on the fire scheme and did not anticipate any movement over the next two months. PAB members agreed to keep the action open.

Matters arising

6. None raised

Guidance on Police Oaths and Attestations

As part of the circulated papers, Ryan Mcelney (HO) provided a document on Guidance on Police Oaths and Attestations. Please refer to the paper for further details.

7. Ryan Mcelney (HO) explained that colleagues in the Home Office contacted him about the departmental coordination of Operation London Bridge (the event of the death of Her Majesty the Queen) and the implications for oaths and attestations.

8. Questions arose about the application of the Interpretation Act 1978, and whether the Police Act 1996 needed to be amended to reflect the change in the attestation from Queen Elizabeth II to King Charles III. It was agreed that existing declarations remain valid after the succession of a new monarch to the Crown as section 10 of the Interpretation Act 1978 stipulated references to the Queen and Her Majesty may be construed as referring to his or her successor. Similarly, the wording of the declaration would also be required to change after the succession of a new monarch to the Crown by replacing King for Queen or vice versa. The modification does not require amendments to the statute.

9. Ryan concluded by explaining that if you worked for Police Scotland or Police Service Northern Ireland, there was no mention of the monarch in said declarations meaning there is no requirement to change. Similarly, if you worked in the British Transport Police or Ministry of Defence Police based in England or Wales, you would swap Queen for King as per the guidance, but if you are based in Scotland or Northern Ireland, the guidance would not apply. He said the next step would be to ensure the guidance goes out to all forces in England and Wales. Members noted the report and made no comments. The Chair invited any questions to be sent to PABEWsecretariat@homeoffice.gov.uk.

Updates from College of Policing - Police Secondees Policy/Amendment to current PABEW guidance December 2013

10. Sandy Purewal (CoP) explained the agenda item concerned the CoP’s unsuccessful attempts over two and a half years to update the PABEW guidance on central service allowance. In light of this, the CoP planned two alternative approaches. Firstly, to write their own police secondee policy, meaning any secondee that went over to CoP would be clear on the relevant elements that apply. CoP said they would draft the policy and bring it to PABEW for consultation.

11. The second approach would be to seek an amendment to the current PABEW guidance on page 15 under section 2.14, which stipulated that the allowance would only apply to the CoP. Specifically, the request was for the removal of the chart, ensuring the College of Policing was not singled out in the absence of the rest of the guidance not being updated.

12. Emma Plummer (HO) said they did have a dedicated resource who restructured the draft guidance before that person moved on. The CoP and HMRCFRS had comments, and HO said they planned to incorporate them into the draft and resend them for further analyses. Unfortunately, other work had to be prioritised, and they had not had an opportunity to make revisions. There remained two drafts with various comments that needed to be incorporated into the guidance.

13. The Chair asked for clarification on the process to approve changes. Emma Plummer (HO) said changes to the draft guidance would need to be returned to PABEW for consultation.

14. Gemma Fox (PFEW) insisted it should be the HO taking the lead in drafting revised guidance before it was brought back to the PABEW for consideration. She understood the College’s frustrations about the lack of progress but noted that that there were multiple organisations that would be impacted, and the PSA supported this position. She also stated that the previous version of the guidance circulated on 22nd March from the working group did not contain tracked changes and failed to relay what was new information and what had been removed. Emma Plummer (HO) was unsure if there was a tracked change version. The Chair said that in its absence, the PFEW may be able to review against their own changes and comments.

15. Daniel Murphy (PSA) said that if CoP were going to bring back their policy. staff associations would need to be engaged formally and required consultation as the PABEW guidance had balanced many issues such as working hours or travel times. PSA said if the result was an agreement they were not happy with, they would advise members not to take secondments as their terms and conditions would be reduced. PSA said they would expect any consultation to contain an equality impact assessment and asked what the process would be if a document came back to the meeting and an agreement could not be reached.

16. The Chair questioned the resources required and asked if the HO could look at the different versions of the document. This would mean everyone would understand what had been changed, integrate the comments received and bring a further document back to PABEW.

17. Sandy Purewal (CoP) agreed PABEW needed updated guidance but said the standalone policy approach was supported by the HO during the working group. Sandy agreed with Dan Murphy (PSA) that it would be required to go through consultation.

18. The Chair asked Emma Plummer (HO) to tie the guidance together to understand where every aspect lay and then hold a follow-up meeting with the Chair to decide how the issue could be moved forward. Sandy Purewal (CoP) and other members agreed with the proposal. Sandy said CoP would continue their work in the background and bring any plans to PABEW. Action Point 2: Emma Plummer (HO) will work on the draft secondments guidance and follow up with the Chair to discuss how to move it forward.

Police Pensions: UK Police Pensions Consultative Forum & Scheme Advisory Board Update.

The Chair also updated members on discussions that took place at the Police Consultative Forum on 30 June 2022

19. The Chair began her update on the quarterly round of meetings with the PCF held on 30th June, which focused on regional allowances, as well as how members bring submissions into the PRRB process. Daniel Murphy (PSA) said he shared an email setting out the different occasions regional allowances had been submitted to the PRRB by the PSA/PFEW. He noted that one recent comment from the PRRB recognised that it was overdue work which needed to be completed. He said the NPCC approach was to set up a meeting with the staff side and not the staff associations, which had not worked.

20. Frances Clark (HO) responded by pointing out that PAB was not the forum where discussions on pay took place. She said the HO would be considering all the PRRB’s comments from the last the pay round and would also be preparing a list of all the allowances for the Home Secretary to refer to the PRRB for a review, which would be sent to the PCF shortly. She noted that it would be for the Home Secretary to make the final decision.

21. Daniel Murphy (PSA) said it not gone further over the years, as to do so, it must be in the remit letter for a recommendation to be made by the PRRB.

22. The Chair asked when the list would be brought to the PCF. Frances Clark (HO) explained that HO was circulating a table of all the PRRB’s comments over the next couple of days, including the list of allowances and as the next PCF was not until 29th September, was open to an interim meeting, if members were not on annual leave. Frances specified that PCF table and list of allowances would only be sent to PCF members.

23. The Chair then moved on to the informal meeting of SAB members held on 5th July at the Home Office. Several decisions were made and noted at that meeting, and a follow up was held with Callum Macleod (PFEW) and colleagues in Leatherhead. At the meeting on the 5th July, there was support for an employer levy to fund an independent secretariat for the SAB outside of the HO, with the NPCC and APCC being suggested as possible ‘hosts’.. It was agreed that a small working group would be set up to consider the levy and other issues concerning the future functioning of the SAB. It was also decided that the terms of reference for the SAB would need to be amended.

24. The Chair said further proposals would be sent out to members of the SAB before the meeting in October, once the working group had met.

25. Calum Macleod (PFEW) noted that in the first round of meetings on the remedy process, there was only three days’ notice for the slides, which had reduced to two and a half days for the next meeting, which prevented PFEW from having enough time to consider the detail. He said he would need more time to fulfil his organisation’s position in a meaningful way. Frances Clark (HO) expressed understanding and noted that the (HO) had two people off with COVID, which meant they could not circulate their material on time.

26. Calum Macleod (PFEW) said it would be helpful for PFEW to feed in their viewpoints before the meeting, which would be more meaningful than going through the slides. Frances Clark (HO) pointed out that many people were attending and would hold different views about how the forum should run. Frances encouraged Callum to send an email for any alternative suggestions.

27. Daniel Murphy (PSA) brought PAB members’ attention to judicial review by the major unions and the FBU regarding the cost cap. He noted the hearing was set for the last week of January and the first week of February 2023 and felt the outcome may have consequences for the police pension scheme and remedy.

28. Calum Macleod (PFEW) agreed and said PFEW would like to understand the potential financial impact if the legal challenge was successful and the impact on the 2015 care scheme pension service if the government lost the case. Frances Clark (HO) said she could not comment on active litigation but understood the PFEW interest and would look to see if it was possible to update members without breaching legal privilege. Action point 3: Frances Clark (HO) to access what information could be shared on the potential financial impact of the FBU/unions cost cap case against the government.

29. Calum Macleod (PFEW) asked if the NPCC had an update on when 2006 members would be able to use the pensions remedy. Kevin Courtney (NPCC) replied that it was currently in a testing environment, and subject to the outcome, they were hoping it would be released within two weeks.

30. Calum Macleod (PFEW) asked about the NPCC retention and re-engagement guidance that was circulated, the current position for NPCC, if it was possible to have regular updates and which forces or administrators choose to use the guidance.

31. Kevin Courtney (NPCC) said that adoption is for the discretion of local chief officers. He said some were looking at targeting specific roles and ranks, and others were employing a more flexible approach. He said there was a catch-up meeting with force representatives next week and would ask them for feedback on their plans. Gareth Wilson (CPOSA) said he and Stella Brook (NPCC) had discussed issues concerning DCCs and Chiefs, which concluded that changes for Chiefs would require primary legislation, but this was not the case for their deputies. As a consequence, the issues were not likely to be resolved soon.

32. Daniel Murphy (PSA) said there were conflicting narratives on implementation and resolution dates, as police officers were looking to October 2023 as being the date when everything would be concluded, and they could retire on the correct pension with their taxation correctly calculated. He said if this was the case, NPCC and Home Office communications needed to be very clear, as otherwise the result would be strong commentary and requests for legal action from his members. He said at the SAB/HO Collaboration - McCloud Sergeant Remedy meeting, he had received reassurance from the Home Office that officers who retire on 12th October 2023, would retire on the correct arrangements. Frances Clark (HO) noted the forewarning and said the HO would ensure communication was clear on that point.

PABEW Discipline Sub-Committee Update

33. The Chair provided members with an update from Discipline Sub-Committee on 21st July. The Chair highlighted a discussion that focused on the ongoing LQC issue, mainly about concerns that the backlog was increasing, and misconduct hearings were being impacted. The Chair said the Home Office had reported advice was being included in the ministerial box over recess and said there was an understanding that it was a matter of pressing concern. An action had been taken requiring the Chair to write to the Minister to stress that the matter was pressing.

34. The Chair moved on to the Code of Ethics review from Marcus Griffiths (CoP), where the discussion focused on how the work from CoP should intersect with the Discipline Sub-committee. It was felt strongly that the Discipline Sub-Committee should be able to comment on the work formally before the official consultation. Craig Guildford (NPCC) took action to hold a conversation with CC Andy Marsh (CoP) on how this could be achieved.

35. Calum Macleod (PFEW) said he intended to share with the Chair a copy of a joint PFEW /PSA letter sent to the CoP on the latest version of the draft guidance for ethical and professional behaviour and expressed support for engagement with PABEW before public consultation.

36. PFEW questioned the logic of the College issuing the Guidance before the Code of Practice as had been suggested by the College and expressed the importance of commenting on both. PSA felt the CoP was trying to race through the timescales. Paul Griffiths (PSA) remarked it was a complex issue both politically and legislatively and must go through the appropriate processes, whether through workforce or the Discipline Sub-Committee, before arriving at public consultation. He also pointed out that public consultation was planned for November, but it had to go through the College Board processes, Chiefs’ Council, and there was little reference to the Discipline Sub-Committee. He said he had spoken to CoP about extending the time limits before going to public consultation. The Chair had agree to pick up with Craig Guilford on the outcome of his conversation with Andy Marsh (CoP), examine the letter and then consider matters.

37. The Chair concluded her Discipline Sub-Committee update by covering Tom Cherry’s (HO) update, which provided a brief overview on the changes of Ministers, the Macpherson report 22 years on and the undercover policing and Jermaine Baker Inquires.

Home Office Legislation Update

38. Emma Plummer (HO) provided a short update highlighting that the HO currently has one amendment to determinations made under the Police Regulations 2003 out for consultation, which is on a salary for chief officers when they are on temporary promotion, closing on 3rd August. HO also said they were now focused on the backlog of changes that needed to be made. Emma said they had time booked in with PFEW next month to run through the actions that need to be taken and would look to develop a plan.

AOB

39. Calum Macleod (PFEW) said that in answer to the Chair’s previous request about being more proactive in this meeting, PFEW will write to the Chair over the summer period providing suggestions on how to move forward. The Chair thanked everyone for their time and contributions.

40. The next meeting has been scheduled for 27th October.

	Actions	Date of the Meeting	Who/date to be completed by:	Status – to be updated and re-circulated before the next meeting
1	. Action Point 1: Secretariat to finalise minutes of 9 May meeting and publish on webpage	28th July 2022	Secretariat
2	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.	28th July 2022	Emma Plummer (HO)
3	Action point 3: Frances Clark (HO) to access what information could be shared on the potential financial impact of the FBU/unions cost CAP case against the government.	28th July 2022	Frances Clark (HO)

	OUTSTANDING ACTION POINTS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS	Date of the Meeting	To be completed by	Status
7	Action Point 7: Frances Clark (HO) to further engage with Staff associations on Immediate Detriment.	1 February 2022	Frances Clark (HO)	Ongoing