Transparency data

PABEW meeting minutes, 1 February 2022

Updated 4 September 2024

Applies to England and Wales

Members present via video conference:

• Independent Chair - Julia Mulligan

• PABEW Secretariat - Chris Moore

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

• Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW) - Alex Duncan, John Partington and Karen Pinfold (in attendance)

• Police Superintendents’ Association (PSA) - Dan Murphy

• Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association (CPOSA) - Shabir Hussain

• Home Office (HO) - Frances Clark and Emma Plummer

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

• Independent Office of Police Complaints (IOPC) - Kathie Cashell

• Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue (HMICFRS) - Dilber Dervish

• MET Trade Union - Valerie Harris

• Department of Justice Northern Ireland - Amanda Montgomery

• National Association of Legally Qualified Chairs (NALQC) - John Bassett

• MET Police - Duncan Slade

Welcome and apologies

1. The chair welcomed everyone. Apologies were received from Judith Whitaker (CoP).

It was agreed that the meeting would be recorded for transcription purposes

Minutes of the meeting 28 October 2021

2. Minutes of the previous meeting were agreed.

Action Point 1: Secretariat to finalise minutes of 28 October and publish on webpage.

Action log of 28 October 2021

The Chair went through the action log of 28 October meeting, which has been updated in the light of the discussion. Key points discussed were:

3. Action Point 4 (HO to provide written update on need to re-attest police officers on transferring forces) – Alex Duncan (PFEW) queried why the HO had not provided a written update. Emma Plumer (HO) explained that forces were not raising it as an issue, but the intention is to amend legislation later in the year to resolve the concerns previously raised. The Chair asked for this to be added to the legislation tracker and this was agreed as satisfactory by both HO and PFEW.

4. Action point 5 (CoP to provide summary report on PEQF & protected characteristics) – Members noted that the requested summary from the College of Policing on the PEQF and protected characteristics would be submitted to the next meeting.

5. Action point 6 (HO to clarify position of officers with pre-settled status & impact of breaks in service) – Members noted that an update had been circulated that morning from the HO. The HO had advised that pre-settled status (PSS), like any form of limited leave to remain, lapsed after more than two years’ absence from the UK. Before that, the PSS holder – including a police officer – would not be able to qualify for settled status (indefinite leave to remain) under the EUSS if they break the required continuity of UK residence, as per the Withdrawal Agreement (which reflected the absences previously permitted under EU free movement rules). Generally, a PSS holder must not be absent from the UK for more than six months in any 12-month period during the 5-year residence period required for settled status. Members agreed that this action could now be closed and removed from the action log.

Matters arising

None raised.

Updates from College of Policing

6. Sandy Purewal (CoP) explained that the CoP had reviewed the PABEW guidance on secondments and discussed their concerns with the Home Office. The CoP had met separately with the staff associations to discuss their concerns. Sandy Purewal (CoP) stated she had completed an intensive review of the current guidance and while she appreciated a working group was being set up to review it and take it forward, she called for an update from the HO on the proposed time frames. Sandy Purewal (CoP) also asked what should happen in the interim as the CoP are still paying enhanced rates which is inconsistent with other organisations.

7. HO said the working group will review the status of the current draft and come up with a plan for the outstanding areas but could not provide detail on likely timescales. Alex Duncan (PFEW) was alarmed to hear suggestions about what is to be done in the interim period as the PFEW’s view is that there is an agreement in place which stands until a new agreement is reached. PFEW empathised with the CoP’s frustration at the pace of progress but felt the proper process must be followed and issues resolved the correct way. The Chair agreed there was a need to move things forward and stated all outcomes from the working group would be shared with the PAB.

Action point 2: HO/staff associations/CoP to attend the working group and work through concerns raised.

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

8. The Chair provided an update on the PCF and the Scheme Advisory Board (SAB). An informal briefing session was held on 11 January 2022, with a presentation from the GAD on the final position of the cost cap. After that HO staff departed and members discussed how the SAB could become more effective, and it was agreed proposals would be brought to the 4 April 2022 meeting if it went ahead. The Chair explained that following the meeting Dan Murphy (PSA) had provided a helpful summary of the staff associations position on what was needed to move matters forward. The Chair said in the event the meeting did not go ahead, there would still need to be an informal meeting to discuss how to move forward.

9. The Chair explained there was an action to write to the Minister of State for Crime, Policing and Probation. However, she had met with him on 17 January 2022 where it was agreed she would write to him once consensus was reached on how the SAB should move forwards.

10. The Chair explained she had an introductory meeting with Zoe Billingham, the new chair of the Police Remuneration Review Body. She explained how the staff associations view pensions as part of the overall pay package of police officers and a follow up meeting will take place in due course. Alex Duncan (PFEW) and Dan Murphy (PSA) expressed gratitude for the ongoing work of the Chair to resolve the issue.

11. Alex Duncan (PFEW) also asked if the HO could provide an update on the progress of the 2020 valuation. Frances Clark (HO) explained that the process has been initiated on the 2020 valuation and offered to provide a written update on progress and timelines.

Action point 3: Frances Clark (HO) to speak to GAD and write to Alex Duncan (PFEW) on progress of 2020 valuation.

12. Shabir Hussain (CPOSA) stated that CPOSA wish to have recorded in the minutes that CPOSA did not consent to any retrospective changes to its members’ pension rights. He checked the progress of the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill, and it has not been enacted, therefore the staff associations still must give consent (on behalf of their members) under section 23 of the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022. Dan Murphy (PSA) said he wrote the HO about section 23 and had not received a response. Frances Clark (HO) said she would look into section 23 letter.

Action point 4: Frances Clark (HO) to check the progress of the response to the PSA section 23 letter.

13. Alex Duncan (PFEW) asked a series of questions about the pensions remedy; the remedy calculator; immediate detriment; and a review of ill-health retirement and injury on duty. In particular, he asked when would the staff associations receive an early copy of the draft regulations on the retrospective remedy, which the HO had said would be subject to informal consultation prior to the formal consultation stage and asked if the HO could provide an update on the timescales for the phase two remedy consultation. Given the substantial changes required to enact the remedy, Alex Duncan asked if it was possible to have a longer consultation period. He also asked when would the Government’s response to the remedy phase one (prospective) consultation, which closed on 2 January 2022, be published. He asked the NPCC to provide an update on the remedy calculator. On the immediate detriment, Alex Duncan referred to a recent successful claim by the Prison Officers’ Association and asked if the HO could comment on the impact of that case on his members. Finally, at a recent meeting with the NPCC National Reward Team Alex Duncan said that it became clear that a review of ill-health retirement and injury on duty processes was planned. He asked the HO to provide an update on the intention and timescales for this review.

14. Frances Clark (HO) provided an answer to the list of questions starting with the timeline for the next phase of the remedy. She agreed to provide an updated timeline. HO is still finalising how to work through the planned policy, but they will engage with the staff associations. Frances Clark (HO) said she would let Claire Alcock (NPCC) comment on the remedy calculator and noted she would discuss immediate detriment with HM Treasury. Frances Clark (HO) said she would come back with an update on ill health and injury on duty.

Action Point 5: Frances Clark (HO) to provide an update on ill health and injury on duty.

15. Shabir Hussain (CPOSA) highlighted the case of Tapping v MOD (December 2021) where it was ruled asking an individual when they expected to retire amounted to age discrimination. He requested an update from the employers’ representatives for the next meeting as to how they intend to give effect to that ruling.

Action Point 6: NPCC to provide an update NPCC to provide an update on Tapping v MOD Age discrimination ruling.

16. The PSA followed up on immediate detriment, pointing out HO withdrew their policy and the Bill now says everyone will have to wait for their pensions at a later point. They asked if there is an equality impact assessment can it be shared with the PABEW. Frances Clark (HO) challenged the notion that HO published a policy stating it was informal, non-statutory guidance produced as an attempt to provide a route through complex issues and questions. In regard to the Bill, HO said challenges resulted in the position being changed over time but noted that following the judgement there was wider questions about immediate detriment and promised further engagement. The other staff associations expressed an interested in further action from the Government on Immediate Detriment. Alex Duncan noted that the Government had lost and as a result of the decision in the MacLeod Sargeant case the legal position was clear and individuals remained in their legacy schemes. Members who want to retire now should be able to do so based on their legacy scheme and with the right money. He understood that this was a complex issue but it was complex because the original provisions were found to be unlawful. He said it was very frustrating, given the time and money wasted, having to litigate before the Government conceded.

Action Point 7: Frances Clark (HO) to have further engagement with staff associations on Immediate Detriment.

Discipline Sub-Committee Update

17. The Chair asked John Bassett had there been any developments around the Eckland case. John Bassett (NALQC) explained he had recently met with the Minister on this issue and that the Chief Constable is still considering her position in regard to the appeal.

18. The Chair expressed frustration that at the Discipline Sub-Committee there was no representation from the NPCC or APCC. The Chair made a plea for colleagues to ensure if they cannot attend, they send someone in their place.

19. On LQC’s, John Bassett (NALQC) said he hoped someone from the APCC would have been at the Discipline Sub-Committee or the PABEW as they are responsible for collating the figures on the number of LQC’s and feeding back the information to the HO. John Bassett (NALQC) said he believes that most LQCs were adhering to the advice from the NALQC executive, but noted that some who would continue to sit. The Chair acknowledged there was agreement at the Discipline Sub-Committee that she would write to Andy Marsh (College CEO) in regard to his comments about LQC’s. She also stated given the wider issues around who chairs misconduct panels and the suggestion that some chief constables might want to go back to the 2015 system that it now might be an opportunity for a review of LQC’s, to look at the policy intention behind their introduction to and to provide PABEW with data to proceed on an evidence based formula, and to deal with anecdotal evidence based on people’s views and opinions. John Bassett (NALQC) said the NALQC always made it clear that they had no objection to reviews. The Chair said it’s a topic to discuss at the next Discipline Sub-Committee. Daniel Murphy (PSA) questioned why the PABEW had not received a clear policy position from the NPCC on LQC’s. He stated that if chief constables want to return to the previous position of senior officers chairing misconduct panels then they should be clear about it and put forward their rationale and justification for changing the system to the Discipline Sub-committee and the PABEW. The Chair agreed and said she would pick it up with Craig Guildford (NPCC) separately.

Action Point 8: The Chair to meet with Craig Guildford (NPCC) to discuss NPCC policy position on LQC’s.

20. The Chair also provided an update on other matters considered by the Sub-Committee. The College of Policing had provided an update on the Code of Ethics review, explaining that the process had been opened to the staff associations, which was welcomed, and the scope of the review was now published on the CoP website. The College had also provided an update on the review of the College of Policing misconduct outcomes guidance, specifically the NPCC had decided to review the harm section with regard to violence against women and girls and the abuse of position for sexual purposes. The Sub-Committee had discussed the interpretation of Regulation 13 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020 around the issue of 12-month letter to PCCs. Members noted that there were wider systemic issues and the HO misconduct data set would provide PABEW with a wider insight into where the holdups in proceedings were happening and would allow PABEW to analyse and deal with the issues. However, the Chair pointed out there was no indication from the HO as to when the data would be available.

21. Stella Brooks (NPCC) said she would speak to the new NPCC lead on Pay & Conditions Jeremy Vaughan and promised to arrange a meeting between the Chair and Jeremy Vaughan. Action Point:9 Stella Brooks (NPCC) to arrange a meeting between the Chair and Jeremy Vaughan.

Home Office legislation update

22. Members noted that there were no matters that fell within the PABEW’s terms of reference. Emma Plummer (HO) explained the HO’s focus had been on amendments to implement the pay progression standard and the consultation on that had closed before Christmas. The HO were reviewing the detailed comments received. A consultation was currently underway on amendments to Part 1C of Annex F regarding the assessment and recognition of competence, following changes agreed by the CoP. Once those are completed, the HO will be focusing on the outstanding issues. Emma Plummer (HO) said that she would add the attestation question to the tracker. Action Point:10 Emma Plummer (HO) to add attestation question to the HO legislation tracker.

AOB/Date of next meeting

23. The next meeting was scheduled for the 9 May 2022.

	Actions	Date of the Meeting	Who/date to be completed by:	Status – to be updated and re-circulated before the next meeting
1	Secretariat to finalise minutes of 28 October and publish on webpage.	1 February 2022	Secretariat	Completed
2	Action point 2: HO/Staff Associations/CoP to attend the working group and work through CoP concerns.	1 February 2022	HO/Staff Associations/CoP	Completed - Meeting took place 28 March 2022
3	Frances Clark (HO) to speak to GAD and write to Alex Duncan (PFEW) on progress of 2020 Valuation.	1 February 2022	Frances Clark (HO)	Completed. 22/04/22. HO emailed the PFEW on 22/04 on the progress of 2020 Valuation.
4	Frances Clark (HO) Promised to check the progress of the response to the PSA section 23 letter.	1 February 2022	Frances Clark (HO)	Ongoing
5	Frances Clark (HO) to provide update on ill health and injury on duty.	1 February 2022	Frances Clark (HO)	Completed
6	NPCC to provide an update on Tapping v MOD Age discrimination ruling.	1 February 2022	Stella Brooks (NPCC)	Completed - Stella Brooks (NPCC) said an advice note had gone out to all forces via chief’s net.
7	Action Point 7: Frances Clark (HO) to have further engagement with Staff associations on Immediate Detriment.	1 February 2022	Frances Clark (HO)	Ongoing
8	The Chair to meet with Craig Guildford (NPCC) to discuss NPCC policy position on LQC’s.	1 February 2022	The Chair	Completed - Meeting took place
9	Stella Brooks (NPCC) to arrange a meeting between The Chair and Jeremy Vaughan.	1 February 2022	Stella Brooks (NPCC)	Actioned
10	Emma Plummer (HO) to add attestation question to the HO legislation tracker.	1 February 2022	Emma Plummer (HO)	Completed

	Outstanding action points from previous meetings	Date of the meeting	To be completed by	Status
5	James Walker (CoP) to provide an overview of protected characteristic (race, sex, age, disability) data in relation to PEQF and looking at the overall ambition in vision 2025 and whether it is being achieved.	28 October 2021	College of Policing	Ongoing - Papers provided for 9 May PABEW meeting.