Transparency data

PABEW meeting minutes, 2 February 2023

Updated 4 September 2024

Applies to England and Wales

Members present via video conference:

• Independent Chair
• Julia Mulligan
• PABEW Secretariat
• Chris Moore
• Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW)
• Calum Macleod
• Gemma Fox
• Karen Pinfold (in attendance)
• Bahar Munim
• Police Superintendents’ Association (PSA)
• Dan Murphy
• Paul Griffiths
• Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association (CPOSA)
• Gareth Wilson
• Shabir Hussein
• Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC)
• Andrew Tremayne
• National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC)
• Clair Alcock
• Home Office (HO)
• Frances Clark
• Harriet Mackinlay
• Emma Plummer
• Sally Hasselby
• Carly Fry
• College of Policing (CoP)
• Thomas Grove
• Judith Whitaker
• Vanessa Davies
• Met Police
• Duncan Slade

Welcome and apologies

1. The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting noted apologies from Valerie Harris (Met Trade Union), Kathie Cashell (IOPC) Sandy Purewal (CoP) and Katherine Riley (HMICFRS).

Minutes of the meeting 27 October 2022

1. Minutes were agreed from the 27 October 2022 meeting. Action Point 1: Secretariat to finalise minutes of 27 October 2022 meeting and publish on the webpage.

Action Log

1. Action Point 2:Frances Clark (HO) to explain Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 consultation response and expected timescale. Frances Clark (HO) informed PAB that the HO had received a helpful update in legal advice on the matter, which was finalised, and they were hopeful that the response would be published in March 2023.

2. Action Point 3:Technical Group to be held to discuss NHSPS announcement and CPI annual allowance. Frances Clark (HO) explained that the working group on the CPI annual allowance question had taken place and the action could be closed.

3. The Chair noted action point 4 was the next agenda item and would be covered then.

Matters arising (none raised)

Home Office Update: PABEW Secondment guidance

1. Emma Plummer (HO) explained that since the last meeting, HO had met with HMICFRS and CoP and reviewed most of the comments on the previous draft. It had been redrafted and restructured, and much of the detail was moved into the annexes to ensure it was more user-friendly.

2. HO said there were some areas where they required further advice to reflect the needs of the secondee bodies and were planning to arrange a follow-up meeting with HMICFRS and the CoP in the next few weeks and look to circulate a draft for comments to the rest of the group.

3. The Chair asked if the next draft would be the final version. Emma Plummer (HO) said it would facilitate the next stage of conversations. Judith Whitaker (CoP) said CoP had a hard stop of 31 March 2023 to get everything sorted and wanted the follow-up meeting organised quickly to obtain a new approach for the new financial year as the longer the issue went on, the more problems they faced regarding Custom and practice. She pointed out the interim measures CoP had put in place to alleviate the discontent had already been in position for 18 months. As an organisation, they needed to get everything sorted as they currently paid everyone CSA.

4. Calum Macleod (PFEW) appreciated CoP’s desired 31 March 2023 hard stop position. However, he felt there needed to be due diligence, even if that meant working beyond the CoP’s deadline. He said fairness should be applied across the board, and everyone needed to contribute to that process.

5. Emma Plummer (HO) agreed the most important objective was to take the time to make sure it was done correctly and ensure they had a good draft that everyone was happy to take further.

6. Harriet Mackinlay (HO) reiterated the need for further input from HMICFRS and CoP to agree on the core principles of central services allowance going forward. It was the main point of contention, and they needed firm proposals that worked for everybody. Harriet Mackinlay (HO) pointed out it was not a HO allowance, and they needed the help and support of other organisations to come to an agreement before the draft could be circulated for others to review. Vanessa Davies (COP) said they were happy to attend further meetings to achieve the fairness they needed in the guidance.

7. The Chair said there was an action for HO to move the matter on with HMICFRS and CoP. Calum Macleod (PFEW) said the matter would have to come back to PABEW before being signed off.

8. The Chair agreed once the work was completed, a final version would need to come to the committee but hoped that all of the stakeholders would be signed up to the final version before it appeared before PAB to ensure it provided some certainty for the CoP planning, even if the next formal meeting was after the 31 March 2023.

Action Point 2: HO to collaborate with HMICFRS and CoP to move forward on PABEW Secondment guidance objectives.

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

1. The Chair explained that SAB had held its first formal meeting for 18 months on 13 January 2023, and several actions had arisen. There would be technical working groups to look at specific matters in detail in regard to tax and some of the complexities.

2. The Chair said there was then a discussion on the revised terms of reference and how the SAB would work.

3. Clair Alcock (NPCC) added that they had recently provided a draft terms of engagement letter for the Chair to consider regarding NPCC helping with the secretariat, in particular, to allow the SAB to respond to the forthcoming consultation on remedy. She said several actions were taken from the last meeting, including writing a letter from SAB to HMT regarding engagement together.

4. Calum Macleod (PFEW) asked if the funding position on SAB was moving forward and if there was a timetable for voting on the proposed changes to the terms of reference. The Chair clarified the changes to the terms of reference had been agreed upon at the last meeting, and the critical change was the SAB could now proactively provide advice. Clair Alcock (NPCC) said the Scheme Manager Steering group have agreed for NPCC to support the SAB temporarily while work on the longer-term solution was being discussed.

5. The Chair said she and Clair Alcock (NPCC) and Francis Clark (HO) had been in e-mail correspondence over plans to hold a meeting to discuss how everything would work going forwards over the coming months.

6. Shabir Hussain (CPOSA) said in 2006 when John Alexander Gilbert said he was up against a very firm deadline to get the new regulations out, everyone agreed if they were imperfect, they could be changed retrospectively without argument, and everyone was happy. He said the process used was HO circulars to alert administrators to future changes.

7. Shabir Hussain (CPOSA) said that moving forward to 2015, Peter Spreadbury agreed to the same procedure, but it wasn’t utilised as well as post-2006. He questioned the process for quick and immediate change once the regulations were published in October.

8. Frances Clark (HO) said she did not have an immediate answer to that and acknowledged the processes had changed substantially over the period. She suggested it be taken as an item at the SAB meeting due to take place in April and that she and Clair Alcock hold a conversation in advance of the meeting to think about what structures were in place that could facilitate any issues that arose. Shabir Hussain (CPOSA) said he was content with that.

9. Dan Murphy said he had mentioned before that the job did not end with regulations and that everyone must decide beforehand and accept the processes.

10. Calum Macleod (PFEW) explained that PFEW had written to the HO on 10 January 2023 regarding the problems in pensionable pay definition, whether part-time officers who worked up to 40 hours per week would be pensionable or not. PFEW questioned if an equality impact assessment had been carried out.

11. Calum Macleod (PFEW) felt it needed to be recorded in the minutes that there was a consultation on the proposed amendments to the 2015 regulations and the issues that arose from the change in definition.

12. Frances Clark (HO) confirmed the letter had been received, and both parties were content to continue the conversation outside the meeting.

PABEW Discipline Sub-Committee Update.

1. The Chair said the meeting was held on 23 January 2023. She noted that the Eckland issue was ongoing; there was correspondence between the LQCs, the Minister, and other interested parties. There was a positive response from the Minister to some of the requests, and the NALQC was awaiting a response to further correspondence.

2. The Chair moved on to the next item, which was the Code of Ethics Review, where she explained that CoP had provided an update that the launch of the consultation had been postponed to look at the feedback that they had received.

3. The Chair asked if there were any further comments on the Code of Ethics review.Dan Murphy (PSA) said PSA and PFEW had worked hard to construct and support the CoP in making the documents understandable to the workforce so they could engage with them. He was surprised to receive a letter a week prior explaining there would be a response from the NPCC and the CoP to the Bishop of Liverpool’s report and that a report would be released on 31 January 2023.

4. Dan Murphy (PSA) questioned the transparency and pointed out it was a 52-page document without any involvement of the staff associations. He said it strongly linked to the Code of Ethics review, described as a refresh. He felt it could be described as more than a refresh of the Code of Ethics and was concerned that such extensive work could occur between the HO, IOPC and NPCC without any engagement with the workforce.

5. Paul Griffiths (PSA) said that considering it was all about workforce change, he was surprised the staff associations weren’t involved, even on a confidentiality basis. Calum Macleod (PFEW) entirely concurred with the views of the PSA and said engagement had been lacking.

6. The Chair suggested she meet with PSA and PFEW and consider how forum engagement could work. The Chair said she felt there were broader questions. She had previously explained that at the Discipline subcommittee, PAB focused on the detail and didn’t discuss some of the more comprehensive, strategic issues.

7. On the police dismissals review, the Chair said the discipline subcommittee expressed its view that it was being conducted with a hasty time scale. There were concerns about the thoroughness and what was possible within that timescale. There was also concern over the narrowness of the terms of reference.

8. Paul Griffiths (PSA) questioned the rationale of a review when he was told that the data regarding the original decision was scarce. He said any decision should be evidence-based, and the data length was important in understanding the journey of dismissals and hearings.

9. Calum Macleod (PFEW) said there could be a number of unintended consequences, and as a result of the review, he asked the Chair if PAB should have a position in respect of it.

10. The Chair said that was for members of the PAB to decide but was happy to support and felt PFEW could find consensus from members on the issue.

11. Calum Macleod (PFEW) agreed and felt there was merit in putting forward a view from PAB. The Chair suggested discipline subcommittee hold an interim meeting to try and work through that a prepare a response that could feed into the review.

12. Paul Griffiths (PSA) questioned if DSC should provide a response that focused on the principles of expectations from the review regarding data collection and the reviewing of the previous business case, and the rationale for the original changes.

13. The Chair said it would be noted in the minutes but would be more proactive to put it in writing and submit it to the review, which she would be happy to facilitate.

14. The Chair was content to take it as an action and felt it was important that the discipline subcommittee recognised the need to address some of the issues and was constructive in what it put forward.

15. Calum Macleod (PFEW) offered to share a copy of PFEW’s response to the review, which the Chair agreed would be helpful.

Action Point 3: The Chair set up an interim meeting of the Discipline subcommittee to work through a possible submission regarding the Police Dismissals review.

Home Office Legislation Update

1. Emma Plummer (HO) explained that on the HO tracker, there were no Police Advisory Board items, but there were others regarding the PCF. She said the HO had been focused on PRRB evidence over the last couple of months but had meetings with the Met to discuss some issues regarding aspects of the Children and Families Act.

AOB/Date of next meeting

The date of the next meeting was scheduled for 9 May 2023.