Transparency data

PABEW meeting minutes, 26 October 2023

Updated 4 September 2024

Applies to England and Wales

Police Advisory Board for England and Wales  (PABEW)

26 October 2023, 10:30am to 12:30pm

Members present via video conference

Independent Chair - Julia Mulligan

PABEW Secretariat - Chris Moore

Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW) - Gemma Fox,  Gemma Lofts, Bahar Munim

Police Superintendents’ Association (PSA) - Dan Murphy

Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association (CPOSA) - Gareth Wilson,  Shabir Hussein

National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) - Jeremy Vaughan, Clair Alcock, Stella Brooks, Claire Neale, Andy Fittes, Nick Barker

Home Office (HO) - Emma Plummer

College of Policing (CoP) - Sandy Purewal

His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) - Deborah Yeates

Met Police - Mark Pomroy

Met Trade Union - Valerie Harris

Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) - Stephen Oakley

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

Welcome and apologies

1. The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and noted apologies from Calum Macleod (PFEW)

Minutes of the meeting 26 July 2023

2. Minutes were agreed from the 26 July 2023 meeting. Action Point 1: Secretariat to finalise minutes of 26 July 2023 meeting and publish on the webpage. Action Complete

Action log of 26 July 2023

3. The Chair noted that all actions were on the agenda.

Matters arising - SAB terms of reference - amendment

4. The Chair noted there the SAB terms of reference had been recirculated with the main change of being able to proactively provide advice to the Home Secretary. The Chair asked if members were content to approve the change. Members agreed. The Chair said the updated terms of reference would go onto the GOV.UK website.

(Action: complete)

NPCC update: guidance on police officer and staff secondments

5. Stella Brooks (NPCC) explained that NPCC had picked up coordinating some of the changes and reviewing the work. It was a collaboration between the CoP, HO and HMICFRS with input from the staff associations.

6. There was discussion about how the initial document should be reworded, and there was a consensus that it wasn’t fit for purpose and needed to be structured.

7. All the parties reviewed and shared the document, and amendments were made. NPCC then reformatted the document, which helped understand what must be considered. The version circulated before the meeting was not the final version, but it took into account most of the points gathered and was with the staff associations for further comment.

8. Andy Fittes (NPCC) explained the next step after the staff associations reviewed the document was for NPCC to arrange a more significant meeting with all relevant parties to come to a final version.

9. Gemma Fox (PFEW) said that having read through the draft, there were a number of points that needed to be addressed from the Staff Association’s side: time limits, definitions, central service allowance, technical questions, and promotion over time.

10. Andy Fittes (NPCC) asked for feedback to be supplied in writing as some parts could be incorporated immediately, and the meeting would cover the rest.

11. Dan Murphy (PSA) felt the document benefited the receiving and sending organisations rather than the members. He said the previous joint letter submitted by the staff associations with all their points had yet to be addressed, and the document had shrunk by about 20 pages. He also noted that PABEW guidance needed to be signed off by PABEW, not a working party.

12. The Chair said once the next steps were organised and the working group meeting could be constituted as a subgroup of PAB, and then the final amended document would need to come back to an official PABEW meeting for a final agreement.

13. Sandy Purewal (CoP) noted that the CSA allowance was the point that initially stemmed the reviewing of the guidance to ensure CoP was no longer an anomaly and wanted to make sure the updated guidance did not come out without that point being clarified.

14. Andy Fittes (NPCC) said it was flagged as a point that needed clarity in the guidance.

15. PAB members raised queries on the technical details of the document. The Chair asked that members deal with those matters in the working group, thanked Stella Brooks (NPCC) and Andy Fittes (NPCC) for the work, and said she was glad to see progress.

Action Point 2: Andy Fittes (NPCC) to hold a PABEW working group on secondment guidance.

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

Matters arising from round table with Minister Philp

16. The Chair noted there was a formal meeting of the SAB on 5th October. One of the substantive items at that meeting was the consideration of the round table meeting with Minister Phillip. Helen Fisher (HO) circulated a list of actions from that meeting. Some areas needed further work. In particular, the issue of remedy and the implementation of it. A weekly technical working group with the NPCC will look at that.

Opt-outs / future of SAB

17. The Chair said the question of opt-outs was addressed in the meeting, and an action from SAB was for HO and CPOSA to hold a meeting.

18. Shabir Hussain (CPOSA) said the issue of partial opt-outs was a broader issue: if the SAB endorses a change to regulations, HO could not ignore it. He noted the Chair had raised matters arising from the change of reference, allowing SAB to be proactive. He felt it was the first example of the SAB being proactive and being ignored.

19. The Chair said once the meeting took place, some clarity should be gained.  Dan Murphy (PSA) said his recollection from the meeting with the Minister was that he was very keen to understand the opt-out rate and where the data was. PSA asked what had been done on data collection as it was linked to retention.

20. Clair Alcock (NPCC) said that the administrators might need the required information as it was dependent on the actual employer and force. It was a local governance issue and proposed involving local pension boards, which are the responsibility of each scheme manager.

21. Since every scheme manager must establish a local pension board, and the SAB was tasked with advising the local pension board, collecting opt-out data should go through each local pension board. The suggested protocol would involve the SAB asking each local pension board to provide the relevant data. However, establishing the process might take some time to ensure reliable data.

22. The Chair felt the proposed solution seemed easier said than done. Clair Alcock (NPCC) agreed, highlighting the potential challenges if the Scheme Advisory Board directly approached each of the 43 scheme managers to request the data. She said it demonstrated the importance of establishing strong relationships between the SAB and the local pension boards.

23. Jeremy Vaughan (NPCC) said simplifying the governance landscape would help streamline the system for efficiency. He questioned why SAB would not be adequately resourced when it was responsible for advising the secretary of state.  He felt it might be unachievable for scheme managers to have the primary responsibility for resourcing it. He called for a joint discussion on how these issues should be resolved and questioned how the Chair could be expected to interface with 43 scheme managers.

24. The Chair agreed and said she would pick up separately with Jeremy Vaughan (NPCC).

Action Point 3: The Chair and Jeremy Vaughan (NPCC) to hold a discussion on SAB funding structures.

Any other updates

25. Daniel Murphy (PSA) said PSA had experienced a massive amount of communication with members retiring across the country and needed the information they needed to work through their pension figures and make decisions. The HMRC tax calculator members had to use as part of the process had stopped working.

26. Some forces were experiencing issues with the contributions calculator, leading to members retiring without receiving pension information. It resulted in members resorting to social media, with approximately 11,000 officers answering their questions on a Facebook page. Gemma Fox (PFEW) echoed these concerns, emphasising that the lack of communication and calculations provided to retiring members was unacceptable.

27. Daniel Murphy (PSA) called for a leadership perspective, suggesting that the issues should start with the Minister’s apology, acknowledging a system failure. Claire Alcock (NPCC)  provided an update on actions taken to address the issues. She highlighted concerns about the HMRC tax calculator during meetings with HMT and emphasised the need for better governance in deciding if the calculator was fit for its purpose. She mentioned ongoing communication with HMRC, urging individual forces to raise concerns and not delay retirements. NPCC had meetings with the administrator, XPS, to address concerns about communication and late retirements.

28. Jeremy Vaughan (NPCC) acknowledged the impact on individuals and expressed the need to work harder, escalate issues, and improve the system. He suggested drafting a letter to address the urgent problems, with The Chair agreeing that understanding what is within their control is essential for effective communication.

29. The Chair proposed involving Peter Spreadbury (HO) in the planned conversation (AP:3), suggesting they consider how to address the issues collectively.

PABEW discipline sub-committee update

Police dismissals review  

30. The Chair explained Michael Cordy (HO) presented the Home Office work programme, shedding light on its various phases and legislative timetable, focusing on the dismissals review. However, concerns were raised at the Discipline subcommittee regarding the speed of this review and the potential consequences of addressing such a pivotal matter within a condensed timeframe.

Code of ethics - implementation  

31. Marcus Griffiths (CoP) provided an update on the implementation of the code of ethics, clarifying that while there was confusion about the finalisation and parliamentary laying of the three products associated with the new code, they had not yet been laid. Once complete, these products would be circulated to the discipline subcommittee for thorough review.

32. Dan Murphy (PSA) expressed concerns over the Competency Value Framework, a tool integral to promotion and job role definition. He said the approval process initiated by the College’s professional committee was seeking approval without proper consultation. Both the PSA and PFEW were gearing up to respond to this issue.

33. He said it would be on the agenda at the upcoming Discipline subcommittee meeting in January, but PSA and PFEW would write a letter to the CoP and copy the Chair in.

Vetting APP / data dashboards

34. The Chair noted there was no definitive timeline from Marcus Griffiths (CoP), but he hoped it would be complete before the end of the year for public consultation. There was still quite a lot of work on data dashboards, and it had yet to move on.

35. Dan Murphy (PSA) said  CoP had changed the code of vetting, but the APP had not been refreshed or updated. He said staff associations had yet to be consulted, and at the same time, there was the issue of whether it would be disproportionately applied or not. He noted at the last meeting that it was confirmed that no one was collecting the data, and it was a point PSA had raised at the previous meeting that led to action point 3, which still needed to be updated.

36. The Chair agreed and said when it came to the next DSC meeting, a more detailed update should be requested from Marcus Griffiths (CoP).

37. Gemma Fox (PFEW) said you had the dismissals/vetting, review, looking at the Composition and vetting appeal panels, and the mechanisms of how that worked. But then you’ve got the vetting app and code of practice, which are the standards underpinning what vetting managers and units are using as their consistency. PFEW did not understand how one could be looked at when the other had not been agreed.

38. Stephen Oakley (IOPC) said he previously mentioned that he thought it would be helpful if the HO could map across all of the different work areas so members could see how it all links.

39. The Chair noted she had an action at the last DSC to have a conversation with Michael Cordy (HO) at the previous DSC meeting and would pick up on the wider point of how it linked in as well.

Home Office legislation update

40. Emma Plummer (HO) explained there was nothing for PABEW. HO was working on the backlog of amendments with lawyers, and they were focused on the part-time audit. Emma Plummer (HO) said she had a few policy queries and would contact PFEW. Once resolved HO would form a timetable for the amendments.

AOB / Date of next meeting

41. The Chair explained that as she was going away in January, the dates for next year’s meeting in the first month may follow different timings from the norm.