Transparency data

PABEW meeting minutes, 23 July 2021

Updated 4 September 2024

Applies to England and Wales

Members present

• Independent Chair - Julia Mulligan

• PABEW Secretariat - Afsana Begum

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

• 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

• Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC) - Andrew Tremayne

• Home Office (HO) - Frances Clark

• College of Policing (CoP) - Anna Douglas

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

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

• MET Trade Union - Valerie Harris

• Department of Justice Northern Ireland - Eileen Coulter

• MET Police - Mark Pomroy

Welcome and apologies

The Chair welcomed members to the quarterly PABEW meeting. No apologies received.

Minutes of the meeting 14 May 2021

The Secretariat received comments from PFEW to the minutes and needed to consider them. A further tracked and clean version would be circulated to the PABEW and it was agreed the minutes would be finalised outside of the meeting.

Action Point 1: Secretariat to circulate tracked and clean version of 14 May minutes for finalising. Once finalised, to be uploaded on the web page.

Action log of 14 May 2021

The Chair went through the action log of 14 May meeting, which has been updated in the light of the discussion. Key points discussed were:

Action Point 2 and 5 (W80 case and use of force) – The matter was on agenda and discussed at paragraph 28.

Action Point 3, 4 and outstanding Action Point 1 from 26 March 2020 (Police Attestation) – The three action points would be combined into one action point as they were all in relation to police attestation matters. Action 3 and 4 was in regards to exploring online attestation of police officers. Outstanding Action Point 1 from a PCF meeting held on 26 March 2020 queried whether there needed to be regulatory change to negate the requirement for a police officer to be re-attested.

Action Point 6 (Recommendation 2 of Hutton Report) – Frances Clark (HO) explained the PRRB does not have a specific remit for police pensions. However, their terms of reference state ‘It is also important for the review body to be mindful of developments in police officer pensions to ensure that there is a consistent, strategic and holistic approach to police pay and conditions’. When the remit letter is submitted, HO ask the PRRB to consider it in line with their terms of reference. The PCF had various discussions on the remit and pay review process in general. HO said as there would be a follow up meeting before the remit letter is submitted, any queries can be dealt then.

Shabir Hussain’s (CPOSA) view was that the remit letter should be explicit about pensions. If there was an agreement that matters can be commented on, members felt that such matters should come back to the SAB or PABEW for discussion. Andy Tremayne (APCC) said it was important to distinguish the difference between those issues that may be in the remit of the PRRB, and those that they might usefully comment on. From his perspective, he thought it might be useful to comment on pension issues that may affect pay matters, however without the expectation that PRRB would make recommendation on pension issues. Alex Duncan (PFEW) noted that while the home Office expected the PRRB to take a holistic approach to pay and conditions, when the PRRB commented on such a matter it was ignored.

The recruitment to replace the current PRRB Chair was underway and it was agreed that once a new Chair is appointed, the PABEW Chair would meet with them to get a better understanding and working relationship between PRRB and PCF/PABEW.

Outstanding Action Point 3 from 29 October 2020 (NPCC Road map) – Stella Brooks (NPCC) said there was a plan available till March 2022; both for pensions and reward side. She would check if this could be shared with members for information.

Action Point 2: Stella Brooks (NPCC) to share NPCC’s plan for until March 2022.

Matters arising

PFEW asked HO for an update on progress on the actions arising out of the last Secondments Working Group in May 2021. Frances Clark (HO) would check with relevant colleagues and provide members with an update.

Action Point 3: HO to update PABEW on progress with Secondments Working Group and guidance.

Updates from College of Policing

• Anna Douglas (CoP) updated the PABEW that the scoping document for the review of the Code of Ethic had been approved by the Exec of the College and public consultation should start imminently. Richard Lewis, the CC of Cleveland would be chairing the Guidelines Committee with the first panel sitting in October. Dan Murphy (PSA) requested for the PABEW to have sight of the scoping document as Members may want to feed into it. He said that the Discipline Sub-Committee should be made aware of the consultation exercise and noted that the College of Policing representative at the last Sub-Committee meeting had not mentioned that there would be a public consultation.

Action Point 4: Anna Douglas (CoP) to check if scoping document for Code of Ethics review can be shared with PABEW

• Regarding PEQF, the final transition to the new entry routes will occur at the end of June 2022. There was a concern in the previous minutes around impact assessment bearing in mind there is a proposed legislative change for July 2022 which will permit only PEQF entry routes into policing at constable rank. 33 forces have now implemented the new entry routes and there is an ongoing system of monitoring the impact of the new entry routes via live EIAs and ongoing monitoring of impact and implementation in partnership with forces, which should reassure those who expressed concerns. Members noted that an update on implementation of POEQF was due to be submitted to the next PABEW meeting.

Police pensions: UK Police Pensions Consultative Forum & Scheme Advisory Board update

The Chair talked through key points discussed at the UKPPCF and SAB meeting held on 1 July:

Police pensions remedy

• A SAB Technical Working Group meeting was held on 17th June to cover the police pensions remedy work. On 19 July, HM Treasury introduced the Public Service Pensions & Judicial Offices Bill (PSP&JO) to the House of Lords. The PSP&JO Bill legislates for how the government will remove the discrimination identified by the courts in the way that the 2015 reforms were introduced for some members (i.e. remedy). In addition, the Bill will reform the pension arrangements and increase the mandatory retirement age for the judiciary, and put judicial pay and allowances on a firmer legal footing. The next HO-led session will be on the 3rd of August, joint with the Fire SAB, and focus on two items. The first is an introduction to parliamentary process and the second an outline of the Bill itself.

• The seven UK police staff associations had written to the Home Secretary regarding the consultation on the implementation of remedy. The Chair said several meetings had been held to discuss and understand the content of the letter. There were specific points around the function of the SAB. As agreed, the Chair would be reviewing the functions of the PABEW and its sub-groups. The Secretariat and Chair would be drawing up a discussion guide in the coming weeks to enable the Chair to have structured conversations with members, with a view of bringing a final document to the October quarterly meeting.

Action Point 5: Chair and Secretariat to produce a discussion guide for wider review of PABEW.

• HO confirmed the letter had been sent onto HMT too. Dan Murphy was reassured in some respects that the letter had been sent onto HMT. At this stage HO were going through the content of the letter and it was with the policy teams who HO work with at HMT.

• Dan Murphy (PSA) raised concerns that the taxation issues were not addressed in the Bill. HO did not have an immediate response to give but reassured PSA they had received PSA’s list of clarification and acknowledged taxation is a significant issue. He also raised that at some point, there would need to be a discussion around the Judicial Review PSA had brought in relation to government’s promise made to officer regarding the continued application of full protection. The SAB and individual organisation included this in their response to HMT’s consultation, however no comments were received from HMT in response.

• There was a discussion around the breakdown in the process between the SAB, HO and HMT. It was important for there to be transparency around the work between HO and HMT and to understand how they work with each other.

• Alex Duncan (PFEW) sought clarity on whether the SAB would be consulted on the Bill or not as he had received mixed messages. HO explained the consultation held by HMT (last autumn) was on the overarching principles in the Bill, and the further consultation scheduled would be on the scheme regulations. This would be in the form of informal and then formal consultation. Alex shared his frustration as it was now understood that the SAB would not be consulted on the Bill, contrary to his communication with Peter Spreadbury (HO). Because of this, he said it was important for communication to be clear.

Action Point 6: HO to clarify in writing whether SAB will be consulted on the Bill.

• PSA were concerned that there would be no consultation on the Bill and pointed out this was different to scheme regulations. Frances Clark (HO) explained there were a number of ways amendments could be made to the Bill such as those made through drafting error. HO were continuing their dialogue with HMT on errors and therefore were open to receiving any collective technical errors from the SAB. Where any errors were in relation to discriminatory points, the SAB could have those conversations and write to HO/Ministers with concerns. As the timescales were relatively short, it was agreed a SAB TWG would be arranged after the parliamentary process session on 3rd August to discuss the routes and role of the SAB regarding the Bill. Shabir Hussain (CPOSA) said the Bill as it stands had different sections and suggested to go through all of the relevant clauses so the SAB can identify any problems before the scheme regulations are drafted. It was important that members had a shared understanding and agreement of the Bill. Frances Clarke (HO) said the session scheduled on 3rd August would go through the parliamentary process with their lawyer in attendance too.

Action Point 7: Secretariat to arrange SAB TWG after 2nd August to discuss SAB’s role regarding Bill.

• Shabir Hussain (CPOSA) raised the question (as he had done in the SAB), in relation to which he would like a clear and unequivocal answer, as to whether the SAB’s participation in and contribution to remedy discussions could be used against its members by being deemed as consent and thus preventing members from taking future legal action in respect of specific matters?

UKEAT case of Sargeant and others

• Further to conversation at the SAB, Shabir Hussain (CPOSA) requested the meeting to be proactive and raise matters requiring the Home Office/ Minister’s/employer’s action. PABEW and its related fora have always prioritised discrimination matters so as to fast track a remedy. This ruling, which has not been appealed by the FRAs, goes back to many things the SAB have been discussing in the 1987 scheme, which would now appear have been wrongly limited or rejected. Shabir said in short, police pension regulations cannot alone determine a course of action for the police pension authority (PPA), if the regulations have a discriminatory outcome. The PPA does not need to await new regulations, they have a legal duty to remedy the situation regardless. Such landmark cases were brought as a matter of routine to the formal meetings, without the associations having to request it. This judgment is dated from February 2021. Therefore he requested a response on the obligations created by the case and it ought be actioned as a matter of immediacy.

• Dan Murphy (PSA) said it seemed the matter had been considered on the Fire side and perhaps at other SABs too. He could see it clearly created an obligation and therefore it is important that as a SAB, they complied with what was asked in the judgement.

Action Point 8: HO to provide a written response in relation to CPOSA’s question regarding the Sargeant case before the next quarterly SAB.

GAD – SCAPE discount rate and Cost Control Mechanism Consultation

• GAD colleagues attended the SAB on 1 July and provided a summary of the content and the questions being asked of respondents in the two consultations. Rob Fornear (GAD) also touched on the potential actuarial impacts of the proposals.

• The SCAPE discount rate is a discount rate used in the valuation of unfunded public service pension schemes to set employer contribution rates. It expresses future pension promises that are being built up in present-day terms and is set by HM Treasury following a prescribed methodology. The current methodology for setting the SCAPE discount rate has been in place since 2011. This consultation sought views on the objectives for the SCAPE discount rate and the most appropriate methodology for setting the SCAPE discount rate going forward.

• The Cost Control Mechanism Consultation - at the request of HM Treasury, the Government Actuary carried out a review of the cost control mechanism in the public service pension schemes. The final report has been published and sets out his assessment of the current mechanism and recommendations on possible changes. The Government has considered the Government Actuary’s recommendations and is now launching this consultation to seek views on three changes to the mechanism, all of which are recommendations by the Government Actuary. The Government believes that these changes will establish a fairer balance of risks between taxpayers and scheme members, and create a more stable mechanism. Rob Fornear (GAD) talked through the government report.

• GAD held a webinar on 15 July in which they went through the report on the cost cap mechanism in more detail. There was an opportunity for member representatives to attend an engagement session with HMT (28 July) regarding the two consultations. Thereafter a SAB TWG meeting was scheduled on 29 July to discuss how the SAB would respond to the consultations.

• At the SAB, the HO took away an action to see if funding could be made available for independent actuarial advice. The SAB were awaiting an update from HO.

Immediate detriment guidance

• Immediate detriment guidance had been issued and there were concerns around the different interpretation of it. NPCC said when the guidance was issued from HO, NPCC had written out to forces too. They had also previously shared legal advice, which set out a number of significant risks. Alongside the legal advice, they issued a note, which sets how the guidance could be taken forward. NPCC had requested feedback and received 23 responses from forces with three potential options, no to ID, limited application of ID or wider application to ID. 60% of the responses were in favour of limited application. NPCC would look to support ID, however their only concern was to ensure the Bill did not have any impact on the advice they had provided. Shabir Hussain (CPOSA) stated it would be useful to see that advice, as it is in conflict with the Sargeant case, much depended if their counsel.

Action Point 9: NPCC to share legal advice sent to forces regarding Immediate Detriment.

• Dan Murphy (PSA) asked what the policy position would be if some forces did not operate ID at all and whether Chief Constable’s would make their own decision regardless? As legal implications would still be expected, he was of the view of coordinating legal advice in assisting potential legal actions.

• NPCC had identified that the options would present risks and were encouraging forces to follow the preferred option. Alex Duncan (PFEW) accepted that the NPCC was facing challenges however, there was a clear ruling and legal duty to remove discrimination that had taken place. Notwithstanding the ID guidance, Alex Duncan said the NPCC appeared to be giving administrator/forces an option to act in an unlawful manner.

• Dan Murphy (PSA) questioned whether there may be a wider issue with how HMT were dealing with the McCloud finding. It may be that the government was focussing on prospective issues rather than the remedy, and not dealing with the age discrimination as the priority.

Discipline sub-committee update

The Chair talked through key points discussed at the DSC meeting held on 15 July:

W80 case and use of force

• The sub-committee wrote to CoP outlining their concerns relating specifically to the lack of guidance provided to all officers on the current state of the law regarding use of force, who in the meantime, might have to account for decisions to use force or who make decisions that could make such a use necessary. The CoP had responded saying they were “…considering the best option regarding guidance, policy and training in light of the current state of law in the W80 case. We take on board the Discipline Sub-Committee’s expression of the importance and urgency of this but have concerns about issuing guidance during the appeal, which starts imminently.”

• The PFEW and the PSA expressed concerns that the matter was still not being addressed appropriately and noted that the response from the College of Policing contained incorrect information as a date for the appeal had not been set yet contrary to the CoP’s letter saying it would start “imminently.” Although NPCC had written to Chief Constables explaining the outcome, staff associations felt it did not resolve front line police officer issues.

• Anna Douglas (CoP) said a meeting would be arranged between CoP and NPCC to address the concerns raised by members.

Police misconduct panels liability – Eckland v CC Avon and Somerset

• Since the DSC meeting, a response was received from the Policing Minister on the ongoing indemnity issues for LQCs and panel members. Home Office lawyers and officials would continue to give very thorough consideration to potential next steps, and were mindful that a short-term legislative solution is unlikely, particularly as the Home Office will want to give thorough consideration to the outcome of the Eckland case, rather than seek to legislate mid-proceedings. NALQC position remained in that a legislative solution was required. NALQC members were prepared to wait until about November of this year, and if the position were to remain as it was, they would then not be prepared to have the risk affecting their members any longer and would resign.

Time limit on investigations of allegations or complaints against police officers

A letter from PFEW was circulated to the Sub-Committee for its information in relation to PFEW’s Time Limits campaign launched during 2019 to raise awareness of the effect that lengthy investigations can have on officers and their families as well as complainants and to seek a legislative change to introduce a review by a Legally Qualified Chair as an investigation approached 12 months. John Partington (PFEW) said consensus view was not reached at the DSC, but that the Sub-Committee would look at the data when it was available.

Home Office legislation update

A table documenting forthcoming and outstanding regulations and determinations was shared with members. Key points covering Police Consultative Forum matters were discussed by HO:

Annex G – overtime when acting up: In response to comments, HO were having another look at a couple of the proposed amendments.

Annex F and U – 2020/21 pay award and TVP: Complete and published as a circular. PSA said regarding the changes to the TVP, they had asked in consultation responses to remove the word “far” from “far exceeds” when it comes superintending ranks. It was then suggested it should go back in only for it then to be taken out. Dan Murphy (PSA) said the guidance document, which was consulted on by NRT, has a sentence within it suggesting far exceed. He had concern in the way NRT had operated regarding this issue.

Annex F would need to reflect pay announcement. This should be quicker and easier now that Annex F had been overhauled.

AOB / Date of next meeting

The next PABEW meeting was scheduled on 28 October.

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 circulate tracked and clean version of 14 May minutes for finalising. Once finalised, to be uploaded on the web page.	23 July 2021	Secretariat	-
2. Stella Brooks (NPCC) to share NPCC’s plan for until March 2022.	23 July 2021	NPCC	-
3. HO to update PABEW on progress with Secondments Working Group and guidance.	23 July 2021	Home Office	-
4. Anna Douglas (CoP) to check if scoping document for Code of Ethics review can be shared with PABEW.	23 July 2021	College of Policing	Completed Normal process for committee guidelines consultation does not include any pre-consultation with the PSA for the scope. They are able to feed back on the scope in the same way as all other stakeholders are able to, and will be engaged with as an individual audience during the process. We will be consulting on the scope for the Code of Ethics review until 10 September 2021. The consultation documents can be downloaded from the College website once they are published.
5. Chair and Secretariat to produce a discussion guide for wider review of PABEW.	23 July 2021	Chair and Secretariat	Completed Wider piece of work on reviewing PABEW and its committee is ongoing.
6. HO to clarify in writing whether SAB will be consulted on the Bill.	23 July 2021	Home Office	-
7. Secretariat to arrange SAB TWG after 2nd August to discuss SAB’s role regarding Bill.	23 July 2021	Secretariat	Completed
8. HO to provide a written response in relation to CPOSA’s question regarding the Sargeant Case before the next quarterly SAB.	23 July 2021	Home Office	Completed	-
9. NPCC to share legal advice sent to forces regarding Immediate Detriment.	23 July 2021	NPCC	Completed NPCC have asked if it is possible to share this but as it is subject to legal privilege they are not able to share it.

Outstanding action points from previous meetings	Date of the meeting	To be completed by	Status
2. Police Attestation: a) David Paul (NPCC) to check the flexibility of offering online police attestation. b) Home Office to check whether change in legislation is required if there is flexibility of online police attestation. c) Home Office to take matters relating to police attestation further with Home Office policy lead – consider regulatory change.	14 May 2021	a) NPCC b) Home Office c) Home Office	Ongoing