Transparency data

SAB meeting minutes: 14 January 2025

Updated 11 June 2025

Applies to England and Wales

Present

• Julia Mulligan (JM) Chair

• Clair Alcock (CA), NPCC

• CC Jeremy Vaughan (JV), NPCC

• Claire Neale (CN), NPCC

• Shabir Hussein (SH), CPOSA

• Dan Murphy (DM), PSA

• Paul Turpin (PT), Met Police Federation

• Helen Fisher (HF), Home Office

• Simon Primmer (SP), Home Office

• Tom Appleyard (TA), Home Office

• Sara Alderman (SA), Home Office

• Carly Fry (CF), Home Office (minutes)

• Andy Tremayne (AT), APCC

• Craig Moran (CM), First Actuarial

• James Allen (JA), First Actuarial

• Kevin Courtney (KC), NPCC

• Antonia Hoskins (AH), DoJNI

• Elle O’Kane (EOK),SPPA

• Mike Scanlon (MS), GAD

• Ian Cosh (IC), GMP

• Liam Kelly (PFNI)

• Alan Lees (Narpo)

• David Kennedy (SPF)

Apologies

JM noted apologies from Gareth Wilson, CPOSA

Minutes of previous meeting

JM noted that the minutes from the last meeting had been circulated with some small amendments. All agreed the previous minutes were an accurate record of the meeting.

SP noted the action on PMAB guidance. The action needed to be moved to the next meeting as an update could not be provided at the meeting.

The action on CPI mismatch was noted and that there would be a short delay due to consultation and other related matters. This item will return to the meeting in April, and work is ongoing in the background, which will be sent round in advance of April to be formally noted.

JM noted that the next action had been completed and that two meetings with SAB members had been held and that presentations would be provided by members at the meeting. She noted there would be a substantive discussion on this topic today.

CA updated on the action and agreed with the need to ensure consistency from the employer side. She further noted that the single shared service proposal was discussed at NPCC and would be discussed at SAB today.

Item 5: Advice given to the scheme manager or local pension board [18(3)]

JM introduced the agenda item and noted a need to understand the data available to the SAB, as there are issues regarding implementation for all concerned. She noted suggestions in the presentation for discussion, and handed over to CA.

CA gave a presentation on Remedy Success, which covered the challenges that NPCC and Scheme Managers are facing on Remedy, as well as the positive actions that they are taking to deal with these such as:

• having an assigned individual who is the remedy and implementation lead in each force

• ensuring the right instructions are given to the right people at the right time

• Gold meeting with the main software supplier (XPS)

• a software supplier steering group which has allowed for quick interventions to intervene quickly when the supplier was planning to change ABS and RSS delivery

• utilisation of various comms channels to keep people updated and to support consistency: news section, pensions chat, webinars

It was identified that here are 12 different administrators and there is a need to rely on 43 Scheme Managers. The Home Office has commissioned GAD to support developing consistency and key challenging areas in the remedy, such as those with HMRC and tax impacts.

CM queried if what has been sent to members is consistent so far as CA is aware.

CA noted that if administrators have a case that falls into the guidance, they should not pause on issuing ICRSS’s as that risks creating a financial loss scenario.

SP noted the efforts from the NPCC in respect of engaging with HMRC. HF noted that the police scheme is further ahead with delivering the McCloud than any other scheme, which should be recognised.

DM noted that the regulations allow for an extension. If matters are not solved before then, there will be group of members whose view will be that it must be met. He asked if there is a there a time by which communications will go out and asked what the plan would be if the deadline was not met.

CA sighted the SAB on data collection issues continuing and JV noted that there is an outstanding action from the scheme manager steering group to write to chiefs again with a checklist regarding immediate and urgent data returns on remedy progress data.

PT noted that there are a lot of people out there who could be remedied but have not been, making it likely that some breaches will occur. These could be across different forces.

There was a discussion and broad agreement that the forces that are not performing as well they might, do not communicate as often or as effectively. The question of who holds responsibility was discussed and it was confirmed that this is the scheme manager for each scheme.

CA highlighted the opt-out issue that has been identified for a selection of the membership who will be placed into the 2006 police pension scheme rather than their legacy scheme. DM asked if a change to primary legislation was required to address the issue. HF noted that officials are working with lawyers on this. Until it is resolved, HO cannot discuss it but there is continuous, active engagement with HMT on the matter. HF offered to send the SAB a written update on the current position as drafted in the legislation to identify the specific members affected and those who were not.

JM noted that SAB’s duty is to advise the Minister, which is that people should be returned to their original place and that once the update was available from HF, the Board could respond.

Action: HF to send the update by the end of the week, following which the SAB will write to the Home Office.

CA raised other challenges, as they need guidance with respect to “rollback” and matters such as divorce. Prospective and retrospective divorce guidance has been issued by GAD for police and the public sector.

CA noted that the second issue affecting rollback is where there is missing data, specifically around transferees.

The staff associations were asked to update on their concerns with regards Pension Remedy.

DM shared a spreadsheet with a list of the joint staff association concerns with CA, and CA shared it on screen.

DM then talked through each concern and asked what was being done, by who, to try and resolve the concerns. SK recorded the updates to these questions on the spreadsheet.

DM asked if there is a consultation on prospective and retrospective divorce guidance, MS confirmed that there was and that GAD were leading it.

CA noted that HMT set the policy on divorce and that GAD are interpreting how it is done. Therefore, the consultation is a technical one around being able to do what is required of the policy.

JM asked for more information on transferees. CA noted that missing data can be down to transfers and that this can sometimes be to do with previous employers, which tends to affect more senior officers as they are more likely to move between forces. The NPCC will act as an escalation centre but in some cases there are delays in finalising rollback.

The meeting was adjourned for a break.

CA talked through the slide pack which covered:

• the deferred choice cohort and the immediate choice cohort, the data available shows the number of immediate choice RSS issued

• so far, XPS has issued 13,438 immediate choice RSS in total and there is a total of 9368 remaining

• it is possible that there may be historical faults in data that have not been picked up

• West Mids and SYP immediate choice are at 50%

JM noted that pension board chairs for Durham, Surrey, Sussex, Wales, Durham, Northumbria report that their position is largely consistent with what XPS said. None have specific issues with meeting the deadline.

It was suggested that SAB could seek assurance from forces that they have compensation mechanisms in place and they know how to respond to a compensation claim. JM noted that the SAB is not resourced for this and would be heavily reliant with NPCC for the data. She further noted that there is a role for PCC Finance Officers as sometimes this function is embedded in OPCCs.

There was a discussion about ensuring communications are sent to scheme managers.

It was mentioned that on 9 Jan, CA had emailed all scheme managers, administrators, remedy leads, scheme managers, representatives, Scheme Advisory Board and the Home Office, setting out all the issues highlighted in this meeting to do with pension savings statements for this year. The email also went to local pension board chairs.

This covered what action they needed to take and raised the issue of members who may not be receiving a pension savings statement because they have not been assessed. The email included the fact that those people need to be written to and those cohorts need to be identified in order that information can be sent to them.

JV offered to email, to reiterate these matters again.

Action: JV to liaise with CA to email out to the necessary groups again, including the identification of cohorts and data returns.

Action: DM to pick up data gaps with CA

Item 6

JM provided an update on her engagement with local pension boards and it was noted that there was positive feedback from the support that people were receiving locally from the staff associations, people are focused on helping members through the practicalities. The focus is supporting individuals rather than broader issues.

Item 7: pension dashboard update from NPCC.

No substantive discussion due to timings.

Item 8: Employee contributions consultation discussion

SH queried if the Home Office had checked options against McCloud and if an EIA had been done. HF advised that an EIA is being done in the normal way and forms part of the consultation response.

JM noted that a meeting would be organised before 21 Jan, then a decision would be made on how SAB will respond.

Action: PAB Secretariat to organise employee contributions consultation discussion before 21 Jan

NPCC: implementation

CA presented the NPCC information on implementation. Following discussion, actions were agreed:

Action: CA to add “communications” to the recommendations.

To include:

• requesting a reply with a nil return at the right time

• adding beneficiaries and RSS.

Action: PAB Secretariat to add pension dashboard to the April agenda.

Any other business

IHT consultation

NPCC noted any comments on IHT consultation are welcome as defined benefits are included. SH thought that members were not entirely affected, however it was confirmed that some parts of policing are affected. It was also noted to respond to the HMT consultation or endorse the NPCC response.

Actions

HF to send the update by the end of the week, following which the SAB will write to the Home Office.

JV to liaise with CA to email out to the necessary groups again.

DM to pick up data gaps with CA.

PAB Secretariat to organise employee contributions consultation discussion before 21 Jan.

CA to add “communications” to the recommendations. To include:

• requesting a reply with a nil return at the right time

• adding beneficiaries and RSS.

PAB Secretariat to add pension dashboard to the April agenda.