Transparency data

SAB meeting minutes: 13 January 2020

Updated 20 March 2024

Applies to England and Wales

UK Police Pensions Consultative Forum & Scheme Advisory Board meeting

21st meeting, 13 January 2020, 11:00 – 15:30

Conference Rm 3a, Home Office, 2 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DF

Members Present:

Independent Chair

Elizabeth France

Secretariat

Afsana Begum

Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW)

Alex Duncan (SAB Member)

Mike Brown

Gemma Lofts

Police Superintendents’ Association (PSA)

Dan Murphy (SAB Member)

Eamonn Carroll

Superintendent’s Association of Northern Ireland (SANI)

John Magill (via telephone)

Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC)

Andrew Tremayne

Charlotte Radford (SAB Member)

Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association (CPOSA)

Shabir Hussain (SAB Member)

National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC)

James Hurley (SAB Member)

Kevin Courtney

National Association of Retired Police Officers (NARPO)

Steve Edwards (SAB Member – via telephone)

Home Office (HO)

Angela Chadha

Amar Pannu

Sara Alderman

Wadha Salah

Scottish Police Federation (SPF)

Calum Steele

Association of Scottish Police Superintendents (ASPS)

Craig Suttie

Police Federation Northern Ireland (PFNI)

Liam Kelly

Department of Justice, Northern Ireland (DoJNI)

Antonia Hoskins

Northern Ireland Policing Board (NIPB)

Aislinn McGuckin

Scottish Police Authority

Sharon Dalli (by telephone)

In attendance

Susan Humphrys and Andrew Champion (TPR) – item 5

Welcome and apologies

1. The Chair welcomed members to the first UK Police Pensions Consultative Forum (UKPPCF) and SAB meeting of 2020. She welcomed Susan Humphrys and Andrew Champion from The Pensions Regulator (TPR), who would be presenting under agenda item 5. The Chair made clear that TPR would attend the rest of the meeting as observers only.

2. Apologies were received from Iain Coltman (Scottish Public Pensions Agency). As this was the third joint SAB and UKPPCF meeting, the Chair explained that the agenda is still developing and establishing its new form. The agenda will continue to be refined for future meetings to ensure there is no duplication of items. If there are matters requiring a formal SAB view these will be placed towards the end of the agenda.

Minutes of the meeting of 1 October 2019

3. Members agreed the minutes of the joint UKPPCF and SAB meeting held on 1 October 2019. Action Point 1: Secretariat to publish agreed minutes of 1 October 2019 on the webpage.

Matters arising / action log

4. The Chair went through the action log of 1 October meeting, which has been updated in the light of discussion. Some matters raised on the meeting’s agenda were linked to action points, the Chair said such items would be discussed as substantive agenda items.

Key points discussed were:

Action point 2 - This related to the cost of providing data from the Government Actuary’s Department (GAD) to Kevin Courtney/ James Hurley (NPCC) in relation to the commutation cap. Through discussions on the type of data and the purpose of the request, HO had been able to provide information at a reasonable cost. After discussion, NPCC said they were content with this and would now consider the data provided.

Action Point 3 – HO was continuing to work with legal advisers on questions relating to scheme sanctions charges. This is a complex matter but a response was expected to be ready ahead of the next SAB meeting. Shabir Hussain (CPOSA) said a definitive answer which all forces could understand and implement was needed. He also welcomed the flexibility outlined by Sara Alderman (HO) of the chief constable’s role as the scheme manager. As one role of the SAB is to ensure uniformity, members agreed the need for a clear lead from HO on this, as the responsible authority. Once a response from the Department has been received by the Secretariat, the Chair would consider whether further information was required before circulation to members. Action Point 2: Home Office to provide guidance on scheme sanction charges to Secretariat and Chair.

Action Point 4 – There had been a long-standing action for the HO to restart the collection of opt-out data. The following was circulated to members on 8 January 2020:

“This the Police Pensions opt-out data as at 31 March 2019 based on analysis carried out by IFF Research – the contractor who collects and provides analysis on the police workforce census data. Please note, this field was a voluntary field on the census and therefore not all forces completed these questions.

Responses were received for 86,000 officers. The total number of officers in the ADR published for the same date was 125,793.

The returns showed that of the 86,000 officers:

94% were opted in to a pension scheme:

The table below shows a breakdown of the 94% that opted in for each of the Police Pension Scheme as at 31 March 2019.

6% were opted out of a pension scheme.”

Pension Scheme	Opt in distribution across schemes %
1987	16%
2006	3%
2015	74%

Only a single column can be added to the workforce census request with options to select. The actual questions under “Pension Scheme” that were included in the census asked:

• 1987 scheme member;
• 2006 scheme member;
• 2015 scheme member;
• not known and / or opt-out.
• opt in / opt out selection.

Shabir Hussain (CPOSA) commented that a breakdown of opt-outs per scheme and data showing a comparison of the opt-out data against the members’ population profile would be more helpful. It was agreed that the HO would ask the Statistics team whether this information could be extracted, in de-identifiable form from the data collected. As well as considering what could be derived from the available data, the Chair expressed the importance of getting the question right, particularly as this data would also be useful in relation to the current uplift programme. Action Point 3: Home Office to go back to the Statistics team asking them to consider with Kevin Courtney what more could be derived from the data collected, to share with SAB members.

Action Point 5 - Home Office had taken away an action to set out a timeline of the different upcoming work strands across pay and pensions. Angela Chadha (HO) said this was currently in progress and sought further feedback from members on what would be helpful. James Hurley (NPCC) suggested a high level strategy document showing the priorities and work plan for the 2020/2021 financial year.

Action Points 8 and 9 – The Chair had written to Home Office asking for clarity on the legal basis for the Home Office’s view that it was complying with s12 of the Public Services Pension Act 2013. A reply had been circulated.

The then Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced a pause to the cost control mechanism on 30 January 2019 because of the uncertainty around the impact of the Court of Appeal judgment in the McCloud and Sargeant litigation on the assessment of the value of current public service pension arrangements.

Treasury officials signed amending Directions under section 12 of the Public Service Pensions Act on 14 February 2019, following consultation with the Government Actuary. Those amending Directions implemented a pause by removing the requirement for schemes to calculate a cost cap cost in the valuations. Accordingly, the valuation report signed on 28 February 2019 does not calculate a cost cap cost and so the Home Secretary’s obligations under regulation 198(4) of the Police Pension Scheme Regulations (SI 2015 No.455) are not engaged.

Dan Murphy (PSA) said that there remained significant concern about the legitimacy of pausing the remedy for addressing the cost cap breach. The PSA along with the six other staff associations had therefore decided to apply to become interested parties in the Fire Brigade’s Union (FBU) current challenge on this. A formal joint letter from the Police Staff Associations confirming this would be issued. It was agreed the letter would be sent directly to the Secretariat so it can be shared with HO and members.

Amar Pannu (HO) said that as the FBU had issued a pre-action letter to the HO and HMT, under pre-action protocol procedures, she could not add to the information that had been provided. Action Point 4: Staff Associations’ joint letter explaining their joining the FBU action challenging the pausing of the cost cap remedy to be sent directly to Secretariat, who would share with members.

Action Point 10 – Members had provided views to the HO on the appropriate extension to the current employee contribution rates. HO confirmed that if there were to be a further change it would be at the point of the next valuation.

Dan Murphy (PSA) and Shabir Hussain (CPOSA) made the point that this was linked to the Tribunal cases and the effect of the decision should be considered. Those in the 2015 scheme could argue that they should have benefitted from an increase in the rate of accrual. There was a discussion as to whether the contribution rates being used exacerbate the extent of corrections required following McCloud/Sargeant.

James Hurley (NPCC) said from an employer’s perspective, the government should resolve McCloud/Sargeant first so that the impact of the change in the employer contribution rate and the extent of the cost cap breach could be assessed. Members noted that until the outcome of the McCloud/Sargeant case was clear, it was the intention of HO/HMT that the current employee contribution levels and the raised employer contributions would continue.

The Staff Associations made clear their intention to challenge the decision made by HMT on the cost cap. It was also made clear to HO that SAB would look closely at proposed remedies to ensure no groups were treated unfairly. The Chair encouraged staff associations to prepare examples of cohorts at risk of being unfairly treated for the technical discussions.

Agenda Items:

a) Letter to the Minister regarding AA flexibilities

5. Amar Pannu (HO) explained that during the pre and post-election period, it had been difficult to progress a response to this. She confirmed the submission would go to Ministers shortly, with a response expected at the end of January.

b) Yearly pay uplift (PRRB – AA impact)

6. This item is related to point 5 and Members expected it to be picked up in the Minister’s response.

c) Commutation Cap

7. The PSA expressed frustration at the lack of progress on flexible application of the commutation cap. Dan Murphy (PSA), said that if there was no early resolution PFEW, PSA and CPOSA would launch a legal challenge.

8. There was some discussion on the ability of the SAB to secure its own legal advice. The Chair said she would need a formal resolution to put a business case to the HO for the necessary expenditure. Any advice obtained by members could, however be brought to the Board for consideration.

d) Defining the working week for Superintendents’ – effects on pensions

9. Dan Murphy (PSA) said recent consideration by the Chiefs’ Council of a PSA recommendation defining the working week for Superintendents had raised awareness that there were those, mainly women, who are only made aware at the end of their service that they would not receive their full pension.

10. If the Chiefs’ Council agree the recommendation, swift implementation was important. Angela Chadha (HO) said that as this would be a determination rather than requiring regulatory change, there should not be significant delay.

e) Updates on legacy scheme amendments, retention and re-joiners

11. Legacy amendments were being progressed. A draft Statutory Instrument was with the HO drafting lawyer, although this has become a lower priority for the Department in the face of other urgent amendments.

12. On the pension position of those with more than 30 years’ service (who forces might be keen to retain) and re-joiners, Sara Alderman (HO) explained that the Department’s legal advisers were still working with them and a response was expected for the next quarterly meeting.

13. There was discussion about whether there should be any central guidance put out to forces explaining what officer should do regarding their pensions and potential tax penalties. NPCC had already put out information in order to encourage re-joiners and the retention of those who have served for 30 years. There had been problems in the past when officers had retired and re-joined the force and it was important that clear advice was available.

Sara Alderman (HO) said that in the past there had been limited advice from HMRC which was circulated to all pension administrators. HO agreed to reconsider that information with HMT/HMRC with a view to recirculating.

Action Point 5: NPCC to share document on re-joiners to members.

Action Point 6: Home Office to look at previous advice provided on re-joiners with HMT.

14. Steve Edwards (NARPO) said they had sought technical advice from HMRC on this issue and invited members to have a look at the answers on their website.

15. Shabir Hussain (CPOSA) asked whether the College of Policing (CoP) had included a factual statement on the pension position of re-joiners in their guidance, as had previously been agreed. Action Point 7: Chair to check with the CoP what had been included in the final version of the re-joiners guidance in advance of the next PABEW meeting.

f) Update on scheme sanction charge

16. This was discussed under action point 3 above.

g) Update on 2020 Valuation

17. James Hurley (NPCC) was concerned that the questions raised by GAD could not be effectively answered in advance of decisions on McCloud/Sargeant. Given the pressure on resources he asked for reassurance that forces were completing work which was useful and contributing towards the valuation. He asked that the work plan the HO had agreed to provide considered the sequencing of work and asked for NPCC to be engaged with HO and GAD on the details of how this work would tie in with McCloud/Sargeant.

Matters raised for information

18. There were no further matters raised for information.

TPR Survey Update/Cyber Issues and data scoring –

19. Kevin Courtney (NPCC) reported that initial feedback from the TPR was that there had been an encouraging response to their survey with only one missing response. The analysis of the data had not yet been completed.

20. Cyber issues were clearly a big area of difficulty last year, the results of the TPR survey had indicated that police pensions were vulnerable to cyber attacks, but the SAB had considered this information inaccurate. NPCC had written to the software providers and received assurances that the way that the software is used and accessed provides the necessary resilience. The Chair and NPCC had also written to forces on this matter. It was agreed that the SAB would wait until the TPR analysis of the new data was available in July before deciding on further action.

Susan Humphrys and Andrew Champion, The Pensions Regulator.

21. Susan Humphrys and Andrew Champion from TPR presented the TPR’s briefing and engagement strategy. They set out the new ways TPR were working to build stronger relationships with those they regulate. The TPR futures project on process and structure was created to help achieve this. Two models that have been created:

i) Supervision – this is one to one supervision with the larger schemes. TPR spend time with the local pension board in order to understand the scheme itself, their approach to communications with scheme members and general member outcomes to gain an in-depth view. There were now some 18 schemes being supervised. They also provide PowerPoint reports to these schemes to identify areas where they may be doing well and areas that need best practices to be brought in. These are not audits. TPR had received positive feedback from the larger schemes value communication about best practice.

ii) Relationship Supervision – This model looks at the next size of schemes in the tier. TPR explained that they plan to look at specifics areas of systems management. They intend to select schemes in the public sector including four police schemes. The approach includes event driven supervision and regulatory supervision.

22. There were questions raised as to how TPR were building in McCloud/Sargeant into their work, TPR recognised the importance of this to their work with all public sector schemes but were currently in the same position as members. They were engaging with the government to develop an appropriate approach.

23. Antonia Hoskins (DoJNI) said it was unfortunate that TPR were not in a position to identify the forces selected, as best practices would be more difficult to share. As one of the objectives of the SAB is to ensure consistency across schemes, it was agreed that forces should be invited to volunteer information about their involvement with TPR. The Chair would include this in her quarterly letter to pension board chairs and scheme managers and would make clear that the forces chosen by TPR had been chosen using size as the only criterion.

Action Point 8: Chair to invite forces to share information about their involvement with TPR in her quarterly letter to pension board chairs and scheme managers.

Update on McCloud/Sargeant Case Management Hearing

24. Amar Pannu (HO) told members that the Police case management hearing had taken place on 28 October. An Interim Declaration had been reached which made clear that the police claimants were entitled to be treated as members of the appropriate pre-2015 schemes. This was in line with the Interim Declarations reached in the judges, MOD Police and Firefighters’ case management hearings. The Government intends to extend the same treatment to all members of public service pension schemes (whether claimants or not) who are in the same legal and factual position as the claimants. The seven UK Staff Associations had been granted permission to be listed as interested parties to the police hearings, and so were aware of the position. The scheme changes required to fully implement remedy would take time to achieve, however the Government was committed to addressing the position of ill health retirees and those who have retired from the 2015 scheme as a matter of urgency. The HO Pensions team and employers held in–confidence discussions with software providers and administrators in December, with Police and Firefighter employers to test the administrative deliverability of current high-level Government thinking.

25. The next step would be the technical discussions. Amar Pannu (HO) said HMT would be providing a paper by the end of the month with high-level Government thinking. The technical discussions would take place between January and mid-March and there would then be a formal consultation around mid-April. Action Point 9: HO to confirm the length of the consultation period for the remedy to the McCloud and Sargeant discrimination.

26. Dan Murphy (PSA) said PSA were seeking confirmation of who falls within the definition of being in the same position as claimants. Alex Duncan (PFEW) shared concerns about the lack of clarity on this and commented that the Federation needed to protect the position of their members, whether or not they were claimants. The tax implications of any remedy were raised, they would affect al schemes and so a central government approach was being taken to this. Amar Pannu (HO) assured members that views were being fed in to cross-government discussions.

27. Steve Edwards (NARPO) said that South West forces had agreed they would review those on the lower tier ill health pension of the 2015 pension scheme. The reasons why were not entirely clear – it could be to try to find former officers to invite back or to find former officers who now qualified for the upper-tier ill-health pension. It was suggested that HO could contact the forces if they wanted to know more.

28. James Hurley (NPCC) commented that NPCC were looking to put more resources into addressing McCloud/Sargeant. There have been remedy implementation working groups monthly, attended by system administrators and HO. NPCC said that they would like to work constructively with the HO to get a high-level understanding of the work that needs to be completed. Once an understanding had been gained, there would be discussion of how to translate it into communications to forces.

29. There was a discussion on the complexity of applying any remedy to ill health retirement or to, for example, pension sharing arrangements. HO gave an assurance that ill health retirement for both police and fire pensions would be prioritised. Alex Duncan (PFEW) was frustrated that this matter was not being resolved urgently as there are people who would suffer financially as a result. Staff Associations felt the Government did not fully appreciate the anxiety and disadvantage experienced by members during this period of uncertainty. Angela Chadha (HO) understood the concerns expressed but explained the limitations presented by the tribunal process,

30. As a result of the discussion that took place, it was agreed that the Chair should write to the Minister inviting him to a suitable PAB/SAB meeting to hear Members concerns. Action Point 10: Chair to write to Policing Minister with invite to a meeting with SAB members.

Pensions Challenge - Planning for Technical Discussions

31. The Chair discussed the planning of a sub-group group to undertake the technical discussions and the need to identify appropriate members with technical expertise. There would be three meetings which would require good administration of agenda and papers. Each stakeholder group was asked to decide which member would be attending such meetings. Amar Pannu said there would be a covering introductory letter that would be accompanied with the HMT paper, and that the HO would also provide a similar letter outlining what the technical sessions were expected to achieve. Action Point 11: HO to provide introductory cover letter outlining what the technical sessions should seek to achieve.

32. The Chair raised the importance of being clear whether the HMT paper to be sent at the end of the month, would go to all public pension SABs or whether Departments could decide who to involve in the discussions. The Home Office agreed to confirm that discussion would be under SAB chairmanship with views expressed passed formally to the Department. Potential dates for technical discussion were considered with three meetings in February and March. The secretariat would confirm dates with members once stakeholders had put forward the names of those to attend.

Action Point 12: HO to confirm that technical discussions are to be held by SABs, reporting their views to Departments.

Action Point 13: Secretariat to schedule technical discussions meetings.

Reports or comments from Scottish SAB and from Northern Ireland’s SABs

33. The next meeting of the Scottish Police SAB was to be 29 January, where it is expected that engagement on McCloud/Sargeant will begin.

34. Antonia Hoskins (DoJNI) gave an update on the position in Northern Ireland.

• The Northern Ireland Office laid the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2019 at Westminster on 23 December 2019. The Regulations come into operation on 13 January 2020 and include amendment provisions for the 1988 Police Pension Scheme relating to the Walker judgement.
• The Police Pensions (Additional Voluntary Contribution) Amendment Regulations (Northern Ireland) were laid on 10 January 2020 – this added Utmost Life and Pensions Limited to the list of approved AVC providers specified in the 1993 Regulations.

Matters for SAB

a) SAB Terms of Reference

35. A tracked version of SAB terms of reference with changes was circulated to members prior to the meeting for comment. Dan Murphy (PSA) pointed out that the section on confidentiality under the new heading ‘Observers/Advisers’ had been removed. The Chair said she would look at this and revise as necessary. Action Point 14: Chair to finalise SAB terms of reference taking into account the point regarding confidentiality.

b) Scheme Valuation

36. This was discussed earlier in the meeting (see paragraph 17)

c) Update on AVC

37. Wadha Salah (HO) updated members that the proposal for the transfer from the current provider of the Police Pension Scheme (Additional Voluntary Contributions) arrangement, Equitable Life, to Utmost Life, had been approved by the High Court on 22 November 2019 following a successful vote by scheme policy holders. The High Court agreed for the scheme transfer to have effect from 1 January 2020. Following High Court approval of the scheme transfer, the Department is required to amend the 1991 Regulations to include Utmost Life as an approved AVC provider with effect from 1 January 2020.

38. The amendments to Regulations will have retrospective effect from the 1 January 2020. Subject to Ministerial approval, HO intend to launch a formal consultation on proposed changes to Police Pension Regulations this week ahead of the current laying date of 28 February. Following consultation, the Home Office will consider any response received and will inform the SAB of its response and where appropriate, seek agreement on matters where consultation responses reveal differing views.

39. The Home Office would like to engage with the SAB to develop clear communications for effected scheme members on the implications of the scheme transfer and what the next steps will be. The Home Office will issue a statement between (February – March) notifying Police AVC scheme members of the change in provider. The Home Office require input on the statement from the SAB members to ensure it deals with likely questions and is pitched at the appropriate level of understanding of scheme members.

d) Consistency on administration across the scheme

40. Members raised no examples of inconsistencies across schemes.

AOB

Date of next meeting

1. 2 April 2020, 2MS Home Office.

	Actions	Date of the meeting	To be completed by:	Status – to be updated and re-circulated before the next meeting
1	Secretariat to publish agreed minutes of 1 October 2019 on the webpage.	13 January 2020	Secretariat	Completed
2	Home Office to provide guidance on scheme sanction charges to secretariat and Chair.	13 January 2020	Home Office	Ongoing HOLA are reviewing the legal advice received by outsourced lawyers but HO will be looking to picking this back up after COVID-19.
3	Home Office to go back to the Statistics team asking them to consider with Kevin Courtney what more could be derived from the data collected, to share with SAB members.	13 January 2020	Home Office	Completed A response has been received from the Statistics team however, they have said they do not collate the data by force/scheme.
4	Staff Associations’ joint letter explaining their joining the FBU action challenging the pausing of the cost cap remedy to be sent directly to Secretariat, who would share with members.	13 January 2020	Staff Associations and Secretariat	Ongoing A letter has not been sent as The FBU haven’t issued yet
5	NPCC to share document on re- joiners to members.	13 January 2020	NPCC	Completed Circulated 26 March 2020.
6	Home Office to look at previous advice provided on re-joiners with HMT.	13 January 2020	Home Office	Ongoing

7	Chair to check with the CoP what had been included in the final version of the re-joiners guidance in advance of the next PABEW meeting.	13 January 2020	Chair	Completed This was raised and discussed at the January PABEW with CoP, further action points agreed as a result.
8	Chair to invite forces to share information about their involvement with TPR in her quarterly letter to pension board chairs and scheme managers.	13 January 2020	Chair	Completed Letter dated 18 February 2020.
9	HO to confirm the length of the consultation period for the remedy to the McCloud and Sargeant discrimination.	13 January 2020	Home Office	Completed Standard three month consultation.
10	Chair to write to Policing Minister with invite to a meeting with SAB members.	13 January 2020	Chair	Completed Email circulated 20 January 2020.
11	HO to provide introductory cover letter outlining what the technical sessions should seek to achieve.	13 January 2020	Home Office	Completed Email circulated 20 January 2020.
12	HO to confirm that technical discussions are to be held by SABs, reporting their views to Departments.	13 January 2020	Home Office	Completed Email circulated 20 January 2020.
13	Secretariat to schedule in technical discussions meetings.	13 January 2020	Secretariat	Completed
14	Chair to finalise SAB terms of reference taking into account point regarding confidentiality.	13 January 2020	Chair	Completed
Outstanding from previous meeting
2	Angela Chadha to set out timeline of different of upcoming events with pensions impacts.	1 October 2019	Home Office	Ongoing This is currently in progress. Unfortunately, due to sudden resourcing pressures, this action has been deprioritized. HO aim to provide this by the next SAB meeting.
2	Sara Alderman to look at ways to make the Home Office communication document for policy and regulatory changes easier to search for online.	2 April 2019	Home Office	Ongoing This has been deprioritised in the short term due to resourcing.

PABEW Secretariat 21 January 2021