Transparency data

PABEW meeting minutes, 14 May 2021

Updated 4 September 2024

Applies to England and Wales

Police Advisory Board For England & Wales

14 May 2021

Members present via video conference:

Independent Chair

Julia Mulligan

PABEW Secretariat

Afsana Begum

National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC)

David Paul

Nicholas Barker

Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW)

John Partington

Karen Pinfold (in attendance)

Police Superintendents’ Association (PSA)

Dan Murphy

Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association (CPOSA)

Rachel Kearton

Shabir Hussain

Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC)

Andrew Tremayne

Home Office (HO)

Frances Clark

Emma Plummer

College of Policing (CoP)

Thomas Grove

James Walker

Judith Whitaker

Independent Office of Police Complaints (IOPC)

Kathie Cashell

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue (HMICFRS)

Mark Byers

MET Trade Union

Valerie Harris

Department of Justice Northern Ireland

Amanda McBride

MET Police

Mark Pomroy

Welcome and apologies

1. The Chair, Julia Mulligan, welcomed Members to her first PABEW meeting.

Minutes of 27 January 2021 meeting

2. Minutes of the meeting were agreed with one amendment: paragraph 17 in relation to HO’s comms package to be recorded with an action point. Action Point 1: Secretariat to publish amended minutes of 27 January on webpage.

Action log of 27 January 2021

3. The Chair went through the action log of 27 January meeting, which has been updated in the light of the discussion. Key points discussed were:

Action Point 2 (Updated CoP’s re-joiners guidance) – An updated version of the guidance was circulated to PABEW Members. At the SAB meeting on 12 May, Members had raised concerns; CPOSA said there was lack of information available about individual’s pensions’ right. The amendments made only related to the 2015 scheme, which CPOSA said was the cohort less likely to break and re-join. John Partington (PFEW) noted that the guidance would also need to be updated to reflect pension scheme eligibility from April 2022 as a result of the pensions remedy, when rejoiners will be eligible for the 2015 scheme. Members needed to be aware of any implications should they decide to leave and subsequently rejoin the service. James Walker (CoP) said he would take these comments back to the CoP.

• Action point 3 (Code of Ethics and conduct regulations.) – PSA said there was still the issue of the change in practise around test for police officers.
• Action point 2 - PSA to send question for Police Integrity Unit, Home Office in relation to risk of the case law reference between the Code of Ethics and misconduct regulations.
• Action point 5 - (Secondments Working Group) - A working group meeting was held on 4th May, chaired by Home Office. It was agreed HO would lead on drafting the secondments guidance. HO would also collect terms and conditions of secondments from receiving organisations. A further meeting would be scheduled in June/July.

4. The chair then discussed outstanding action points from previous meetings. Key points discussed were:

Outstanding action point 1 from 26 March 2020 (Police Attestation) – This action stemmed originally from a Home Office proposal to amend the Police Act 1996 so that officers would no longer have to be attested by a magistrate from their force area.

However, this proposal was not pursued at the time and the HO had subsequently explained in a letter to PFEW in 2018 that an amendment to the Courts Act 2003 had rendered the reference in s.29 of the Police Act 1996 to ‘a magistrate having jurisdiction within a police area’ as redundant as magistrates now had jurisdiction across England and Wales.

However, the change to the Courts Act 2003 did not amend the requirement in the Police Act 1996 for officers to be attested on appointment including on transfer between forces. At that time, HO had recognised that this was cumbersome and that they would keep under review the case for a legislative change.

PFEW noted that a number of forces had attested officers online due to Covid-19, and asked whether this could this be a possible solution moving forward. It would address PFEW’s concern about delays to attestation. The Chair said this could be a potential interim solution but some individuals may prefer attestation ceremony.

NPCC said this issue was brought up in the Operation Talla recovery session. It was recognised that forces had found practical ways of working by attesting online during the pandemic. NPCC had no objection to attesting online as it was a practical way. NPCC said if this ground did exist, they would communicate to forces through advice/guidance. Home Office said they would follow up whether there needed to be a change in legislation to reflect this.

Action point 3: David Paul (NPCC) to check the flexibility of offering online police attestation.

Action point 4: Home Office to check whether change in legislation is required if there is flexibility of online police attestation.

Outstanding Action point 3 from 29 Oct 2020 (NPCC’s roadmap) – NPCC have planned implementation timelines which they needed to discuss. David Paul (NPCC) would look at what could be circulated at high-level (which would be indicative) that would be helpful to Members.

Matters arising

No matters raised.

Updates from College of Policing: (standing item)

5 a) Amendment to the Police Regulations 2003 (Annex BA (Regulation 10))

5. The College of Policing had consulted on a proposal that the Home Secretary amend the determination at Annex BA to police regulation 10 to remove the IPLDP entry route with effect from 1 July 2022. An email from the CoP was circulated to Members on 27 April requesting Member’s responses to “What additional support (if any) would they like the College to provide to support service transition to the Policing Education Qualifications Framework (PEQF) initial entry routes into policing at the rank of police constable by 01 July 2022?”, in order to collate a unified PABEW response by 14 May.

CPOSA and NALQC responded to say they had no contributions. PFEW had written to the Chair on 29 April to explain that PFEW had been sent a copy of the proposed amendment to Annex BA through the College consultation process and would be responding directly to the College by the deadline.

PFEW had suggested that in order to answer the College’s question it might be helpful if the College could provide PABEW further information on what evaluation had taken place of the implementation of the PEQF including the impact on those with protected characteristics, what are the learning points to date etc. as well as provide a report on its priorities for the next 12-18 months.

PFEW also questioned why the PABEW had been given so little time to consider this matter especially as PABEW had not been sighted on it before and that the change would not take effect until July 2022. In response, the CoP had circulated further papers including an Equality impact analysis of implementation of the new entry routes for police constables, PEFQ learning to date, PCDA first interim report and evaluation of the PCSA was circulated to Members. As they were lengthy documents, John Partington (PFEW) said they would require time to consider.

However PFEW’sinitial observations, although the data was limited, was that PEQF entry routes had had an impact on numbers of officers with a protected characteristic and in particular on age, gender and ethnicity. PFEW noted that the Policing Vision set out that by 2025 policing would be a profession with a representative workforce.

Given the data on the impact of the new entry routes provided to the PABEW by the CoP PFEW questioned whether that target would be achieved.

6. Thomas Grove (CoP) said the CoP had received the PFEW’s consultation response on the proposed Annex BA and a response would be provided in due course. With respect to the Equality Impact Assessment, a new version was to be published by the end of April however due to resource issues, it had been delayed. This would contain up to date information and included figures from workforce census and would hopefully allay some of the concerns about the impact on those with protected characteristics.

The CoP understood there were a lot of information to assimilate and therefore an extension to response was agreed till next week. The timings depended on the various board meetings including the professional committee.

7. John Partington (PFEW) questioned when, if the data continued to suggest an impact on the recruitment of officers with protected characteristics, would it be appropriate for the PABEW to raise this as an issue given the PABEW’s statutory role to advise the Home Secretary. PABEW agreed the matter would be on the agenda in six months time to discuss and review the data provided by the CoP. Action point 4: Matter in relation to Policing Education Qualifications Framework (PEQF) and initial entry routes into policing to be on October PABEW agenda.

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

8. The meeting was held on 12 May.

9. PSA raised concerns about the difference in terms of reference between PABEW and SAB in that the SAB had to be requested to provide advice to the Minister whereas the PAB can offer advice. PSA said there were confidentiality agreements being signed outside of PABEW and SAB allowing policy decisions regarding pensions to be made outside of the SAB. PSA suggested the PAB should write to the Policing Minister and Home Secretary saying the PAB had a duty to comment on significant issues related to the police workforce, eg police pensions remedy. PSA also asked whether the Minister asked the SAB for advice or do they intend to ask SAB for advice? CPOSA and PFEW supported PSA. CPOSA argued that the HO had an extra duty of care towards police officers. PFEW said it was important to have sight of policy being developed to be able to fully provide advice and represent the views of their members. HO responded that they were keen to engage with SAB on the matters they had control on.

a) Pensions remedy update

10. This was a substantive agenda item at the UKPPCF & SAB meeting. The Home Office had shared an SAB engagement plan, high-level timeline and a McCloud factsheet. Since the consultation response publication on 4 February, HO had worked across government on progressing the outstanding policy issues, feeding into HMT’s development of the primary legislation, and working closely with NPCC on scheme specific issues. The Bill remained on track to be introduced in mid-2021, when parliamentary time allows. Work had begun on the amendments to the scheme regulations required to implement prospective remedy i.e. all active members accruing service in the 2015 scheme from 1st April 2022. HO would share early drafts of these amendments in due course, ahead of formal consultation on them later in the year. As Members had raised several questions, it had been to hold a separate meeting to discuss matters in further detail.

11. PFEW reported that it had received a number of questions from officers in forces that had not adopted Immediate Detriment guidance. PFEW might expect for their benefits to be re-calculated and adjusted in accordance with their Remedy choice and whether the guidance would be made mandatory. PABEW noted that these questions would be worked through at the working group meeting.

b) Cost Cap

12. Rob Fornear (GAD) had attended the meeting toformally present the provisional results to SAB members, as they were initially discussed at a Working Group meeting prior to the appointment of the independent Chair. A Police SAB Working Group meeting was held on 24 March to discuss the cost cap results for the police pensions scheme. GAD attended the working group meeting to run through the directions and provisional results for the Police Pension scheme.

c) Any other updates

13. The government consultation on a review Regulation 12 of Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006, was launched on Wednesday 12th May. It was agreed that a technical working group meetings would be set up to discuss the consultation and draft a response as a SAB.

Discipline Sub-Committee Update

14. The meeting was held on 19 April.

a) Liability of LQCs and other Misconduct Panel members arising from Equality Act 2021.

15. The Sub-Committee had discussed a paper submitted by the National Association of Legally Qualified Chairs around the implications (in relation to the EAT case of Eckland v CC of Avon & Somerse) for all police conduct panel members, including police panel members should the Chief Constable’s argument in that case succeed on appeal. Potentially all police panel members. Potentially all police panel members could be held personally liable for claims under the Equality Act 2010, where it was contended that an officer’s dismissal amounted to discrimination, which could undermine the operation of the misconduct regime. In response to previous concerns raised by the NALQC an agreement was reached with the APCC and the APACE on the wording of an indemnity that was currently provided by all PCCs. The APCC, the APACE and the NALQC werein agreement that this should be regarded as a interim arrangement, pending a legislative solution being provided by the Home Office. HO recognised the concerns raised by members and reassured they were working on this complicated issue. A number of government priorities had put a hold on their ability to progress this matter.

16. The Chair updated the PAB that she would arrange a meeting with HO to discuss the concerns.

b) Use of force – W80 Case

17. PFEW and PSA had written to the Home Secretary and Policing Minister with concerns about the uncertainty around the current state of the law pending an appeal to the Supreme Court following the Court of Appeal decision in The Queen (on the application of Officer W80) v Director General of the IOPC [2020] and the lack of guidance provided to their members who may have to account for their decision to use force in the meantime.

18. There had been a discussion around the responsibility of relevant bodies to communicate the message to police officers., Marcus Griffith’s (CoP) had suggested that it should sit under the Officer Safety Training curriculum, which was currently being reviewed. Marcus Griffiths had undertaken to take away NPCC’s comment about the wider policy around training and the request for interim guidance. IOPC did not view this matter as a policy change rather that it was a legal interpretation which the IOPC disagreed with, and which the Court of Appeal upheld. PSA on the other hand expressed views that it should have been risk assessed first as there were now police officers using force without any clarity due to the legal challenges.

19. The chair had taken an action to write to CoP about Discipline Sub-Committee’s views on current state of law in relation to the use of force and W80 case.

20. Dan Murphy (PSA) raised that there was still the position by where CoP nor NPPC were taking the lead on this matter. Dan Murphy (PSA) felt the PABEW had a duty to ensure police officers were made aware of the changes. John Partington (PFEW) noted that Craig Guildford (NPCC) was of the view that he had informed forces of the current position and that the duty to provide guidance/training to officers sat with the College of Policing. PFEW was concerned with the length of time this matter had been going on for. The Chair said the matter was for the CoP and NPCC but recognised that there was a risk of which the Minister may wish to consider. Action Point 5: Chair to email Craig Guilford (NPCC) raising PABEW’s concerns on use of force and W80 case.

c) Code of Ethics

21. The Sub-Committee noted that the CoP are undertaking a review of the Code of Ethics. They were currently looking at the resources they would require to develop this piece of work. It was anticipated to be a 12-18 month project. The CoP had started work on scoping documents and how they can develop this through the evidence-based guidelines approach. They were also working closely with the NPCC Ethics lead, who would chair the guidelines committee in relation to this work. There would be a consultation process at the appropriate time and a draft would be submitted to the Sub-Committee

Home Office Legislation Update

22. A paper documenting upcoming and outstanding regulations and determinations was circulated to Members. Key points noted were:

Parental bereavement leave determination – this had been completed and was expected to be published as circular within the next few days.

Targeted Variable Pay determination – this was expected to be submitted to Minister in the next few weeks and implemented from 1st July.

The consultation to amend determinations to implement the Pay Awards 20/21 closed on 14 May.

AOB:

9a) Recommendation 2 of the government’s response to the Hutton report 23. Shabir Hussain (CPOSA) raised Recommendation 2 of the report. The Commission recommends that public service employers take greater account of public service pensions when constructing remuneration packages and designing workforce strategies. The government should make clear in its remits for pay review bodies that they should consider how public service pensions affect total reward when making pay recommendations. Shabir said the HO in its remit letter excludes pensions and requested a response from HO.

Action point 6: HO to respond to Shabir’s question regarding recommendation 2 of government’s response to the Hutton report.

PABEW Meetings:

a) Member’s view on upcoming meetings (video/face-to-face meetings)

24. There was a discussion on Member’s view on upcoming meetings. HO’s policy on working remotely was being reviewed but it currently stood colleagues not attending Marsham Street. Member’s felt a blend of video and face-to-face may be ideal. It was also to consider technical equipment, travelling to conduct meetings going forward. The Chair agreed to have a consultation to create a plan for meetings going forward.

b) Date of next meeting

25. The next meeting was scheduled 23 July. Shabir Hussain (CPOSA) suggested bringing the meeting forward as it was during the school public holidays.

Table of actions

	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 publish amended minutes of 27 January on webpage.	14 May 2021	Secretariat	Completed Police Advisory Board for England and Wales: minutes of meetings
2	PSA to send question for Police Integrity Unit, Home Office in relation to risk of the case law reference between the Code of Ethics and misconduct regulations.	14 May 2021	PSA	Completed Dan Murphy (PSA) noted HO’s position in Frances Clark’s correspondence (17 May). The matter was discussed at the DSC – update to be given at quarterly PAB meeting.
3	David Paul (NPCC) to check the flexibility of offering online police attestation.	14 May 2021	NPCC	Ongoing
4	Home Office to check whether change in legislation is required if there is flexibility of online police attestation.	14 May 2021	Home Office	Ongoing
5	Chair to email Craig Guilford (NPCC) raising PABEW’s concerns on use of force and W80 case.	14 May 2021	Chair	Completed
6	HO to respond to Shabir’s question regarding recommendation 2 of government’s response to the Hutton report.	14 May 2021	Home Office	Ongoing

	Outstanding action points from previous meetings	Date of the meeting	To be completed by	Status
1	Home Office to take matters relating to police attestation further with Home Office policy lead.	26 March 2020	Home Office	Ongoing : Harriet Mackinlay updated members it was being kept under review.
3	NPCC to produce a roadmap of the work expected in relation to pay and pensions up until 2022.	29 October 2020	NPCC	Ongoing: Work is ongoing and would be circulated as soon as ‘roadmap’ completed.