Transparency data

PABEW meeting minutes, 28 October 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) Clair Alcock and David Paul

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

• Police Superintendents’ Association (PSA) - Dan Murphy, Eamonn Carroll and Duncan Slade

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

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

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

• College of Policing (CoP) - James Walker and Thomas Grove

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

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

• MET Trade Union - Valerie Harris

• Department of Justice Northern Ireland - Amanda McBride

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

Welcome and apologies

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

Minutes of the meeting 23 July 2021

Minutes of the previous meeting were agreed.

Action Point 1: Secretariat to finalise minutes of 23 July and publish on webpage.

Action log of 23 July 2021

The Chair went through the action log of 23 July meeting, which has been updated in the light of the discussion. Key points discussed were:

Action point 1 (Minutes of meeting held on 14 May 2021) – Alex Duncan (PFEW) noted that this action point was still outstanding and the minutes of the meeting held on 14 May had not yet been agreed.

Action Point 2 (NPCC’s plan Present – March 2022) - David Paul (NPCC) to check in with Stella Brooks (NPCC) regarding their plan available for up to March 2022; both for pensions and reward side.

Action Point 3 (Secondments WG and guidance) – HO reported due to urgent priority work over the last few months, they had not been able to progress this work. HO had spoken to their HR leads about this policy and had a meeting with HMICFRS to understand more about this. They also had conversations with Police Now but decided they were out of scope as their secondments worked differently to others. HO would look at the guidance as agreed at the Secondment Working Group meeting and circulate a copy to members, no time scale could be given at this moment. At the last Secondments WG meeting (4 May) it was agreed each organisation would consider their individual policies which would then feed into the main PABEW secondments policy.

PSA and PFEW said they had been invited to a College of Policing meeting regarding the College’s proposed secondment agreement. The College was proposing that going forward officers on secondment to the College should be paid the standard central service allowance, which would require a change to the PABEW guidance.

John Partington (PFEW) said that individual secondment agreements needed to be drawn up in line with the principles and framework set out in the PABEW guidance to ensure fairness and consistency. Therefore, the College’s proposal regarding the payment of central service allowance needed to be considered by the PABEW and if agreed the PABEW guidance amended accordingly. The Home Office needed to coordinate the review of the central PABEW guidance. The Chair noted that each organisation needed to know what framework it was working to.

Dan Murphy’s (PSA) was concerned that the proposal of each organisation writing their own policy and feeding into the PABEW guidance may make the PABEW secondments guidance generic and mean there were differing guidance for each organisation. The aim was to try and achieve consistency and set standards with regards to what is required to do.

Dan Murphy (PSA) said in the draft he had seen from the CoP, they were setting up a different type of bonus payment arrangement for certain officers where the CoP would make the decision on whether or not it is a valid payment or not. He thought these matters may be for the PCF or PRRB as it was important to make sure for officers who are governed by regulation and if they move outside the regulations to elsewhere, that the agreements have gone through the proper structures agreed.

Action Point 2: James Walker (CoP) to take back conversations regarding their payment structure on bonus payments within secondment guidance to CoP and report to HO.

Action Point 3: HO to check whether secondment guidance issue is a wider issue and clarify principles from last Secondment WG meeting.

Action Point 6 (SAB consultation on Bill)) – This action point was completed; Frances Clark (HO) responded to Alex Duncan (PFEW) directly.

Action Point 8 (CPOSA’s question re Sargeant case) – This action point was ongoing and Frances Clark would respond to Shabir Hussain (CPOSA).

Action Point 9 (NPCC advice re immediate detriment) – NPCC has asked if it is possible to share the legal advice sent to forces but as it is subject to legal privilege they are not able to share it.

The Chair went through the outstanding action points from previous meetings. Key points discussed were:

Outstanding Action Point 2 from 14 May 2021 (Police attestation) – This would be kept under review as HO were not aware of major issues at the moment. This action point would be removed from the action log. Alex Duncan (PFEW said there was still the question of whether there was a continuing need to re-attest police officers when transferring from one force to another. This question will be taken away by HO for a written update.

Action Point 4: HO to provide written update on whether there was a continuing need to re-attest police officers when transferring from one force to another.

Updates from the College of Policing:

Police Education Qualifications Framework (PEQF) update and entry routes

James Walker (CoP) gave a brief context of the PEQF. There were three entry routes; PCDA, a degree holder entry and pre-joined degree. The Equality Impact Assessment was available on the CoP’s website, which is regularly updated and goes through each of the characteristics. He outlined the data in detail including for protected characteristics.

Alex Duncan (PFEW) thanked the College for its update however this was not the information that the PABEW had requested at its’ meeting in May 2021. PABEW had asked for updated data to be provided to this meeting on the recruitment of officers through the PEQF with a view to providing the PABEW with a level of assurance that the PEQF was helping to achieve the ambition in the Policing Vision that by 2025 policing would be a profession with a representative workforce. It would be helpful to have this information provided in a written update rather than verbally. David Paul (HO) mentioned the HO’s Police Uplift Programme have done a survey.

Action Point 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.

Regulation 29 of the Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Alex Duncan (PFEW) asked whether regulation 10 of the Police regulations 2003 had been amended and secondly if there had been any consideration about the position of officers with pre settled status, who take a career break or other break in service and leave the UK for more than two years and then be unable to apply for indefinite leave to remain.

Action Point 6: HO to clarify if there had been any consideration about the position of officers with pre-settled status, who can take a career break or other break in service and leave the UK for more than two years and then be unable to apply for indefinite leave to remain.

Thomas Grove (CoP) confirmed that Police Regulation 10 had been amended by Regulation 29 of the Immigration, Nationality and Regulations 2019 and now provides that a candidate for appointment to a police force must, if not a national of the United Kingdom or an EEA state, have leave to remain the United Kingdom for an indefinite period. This had come into force at the end of the transition period, which was amended to the 31st of December 2020.

In October 2020, the HO had contacted the CoP to discuss a further amendment that might be needed. It was the HO’s view that the amendment to Regulation 10 might be seen as giving primacy to a national of the United Kingdom or an EEA state over the rest of the world so it could be seen as creating a tiered or hierarchical approach to employment. Whereas general government immigration policy aim was to remove any preference between a national or an application from a national from an EA state or from another country outside. The CoP was informed that the ministers were prepared to delay that decision until at least 2021. However, at the current time there were no plans to amend regulation 10 any further.

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

The UKPPCF and Police Pension SAB scheduled for 6 October was cancelled as a result of the Staff Associations withdrawing, who were disappointed in not receiving a response to their letter to the Home Secretary regarding the remedy consultation and SAB engagement.

Alex Duncan (PFEW) noted that the staff associations had always indicated that they were happy to discuss a way forward and how to make the SAB work. The SAB had been set up to provide advice to the Minister and the staff associations had explained to the Minister why they thought the current arrangements did not work. The lack of a response form the Minister was insulting to the officers that he represented and seemed to suggest that the Minister did not want advice from the SAB. The Chair updated members that she, HO and NPCC pension leads had a meeting to consider future ways of working for the SAB and had come up with a number of suggestions and ideas. It was agreed the Chair would first have separate conversations with the staff associations and the arrange a working group meeting to discuss further.

Action Point 7: Chair to arrange individual conversation with staff association and thereafter a working group meeting to discuss SAB.

Shabir Hussain wished to check that the way officials dealt with issues hadn’t changed; namely they would produce a summary sheet for the minister summarising the staff associations’ request, analysing the pros and cons and making a recommendation to the minister.

PFEW said during the remedy process, the unique nature of employment for police officers and the pension arrangement had not been recognised by the Government and by HM Treasury. There was a frustration about not being able to engage with HM Treasury and repeating questions to the HO and not receiving a response for example CPOSA was awaiting a substantive response to a tax issue. After discussion, it was agreed the Chair would write to the Minister outlining the difficulties that this was causing to the SAB and ask for a substantive and meaningful response to the Staff Association’s letter.

Action Point 8: Chair write to the minister setting out implications of the lack of response to Staff Association’s letter.

Discipline sub-committee update

The DSC meeting was held on 21 October.

Police Misconduct Panels liability – Eckland v CC Avon and Somerset

The sub-committee noted that the Court of Appeal hearing was due to take place on the 23rd and 24th November 2021. The NALQC, IOPC and APCC had been granted permission to intervene. John Bassett (NALQC) had informed the Sub-Committee that whilst the APCC was generally supportive of the NALQC’s position, there were certain passages in the APCC’s written submission that were of concern. In particular, the APCC had indicated that PCCs were likely to remove the temporary indemnity provision due to the potential financial implications if the Chief Constable’s appeal succeeded. John Bassett said the NALQC’s AGM had been postponed and was now due to take place a day after the Court of Appeal hearing. It was probable that at the AGM members would reconsider their willingness to continue chairing misconduct hearings. He noted that the Home Office’s position would be to await the outcome of the case including any appeal to the Supreme Court.

Andy Tremayne (APCC) said that following the Discipline Sub-Committee meeting, a meeting had taken place on 27 October with APCC, APACE, HO and NALQC. He said that APCC and APACE will still try and write to the NALQC and reassure them that the temporary indemnity that the commissioners provide is meaningful and in support of that. APCC had the chief finance officer from Avon and Somerset with them yesterday and he spoke about the arrangements that he’s making to ensure that there’s a reserve in place should that indemnity need to need to be drawn upon and also in respect of time together with the home office. Andy said the HO said yesterday that the home office wouldn’t necessarily wait for the outcome of the case, and that there was that that realisation that this was a matter that needed to be needed to be resolved.

College of Policing misconduct outcomes guidance

The sub-committee noted that due to recent activities that had taken place around the issue of violence against women and girls, there was a call for a review of the Misconduct outcomes Guidance as to whether the harms section is strong enough. The review was called by NPCC to see elements of the guidance strengthened and clarify the expectation around this type of misconduct.

Home Office Circular 010/2017: Guidance to local policing bodies on providing financial assistance to police officers and staff facing legal proceedings – updates.

The sub-committee noted that Dan Murphy (PSA) had written to the HO setting out the issues of the circular in that the decision making body that allows for officers and staff to access legal support in proceedings, if they have acted in good faith, is the PCC. PSA considered this to be political and the decision should not lie to one person. Dan said the position was not registered by the HO. Marc Jones (APCC Chair) who could see the potential conflict and was willing to consult with APCC members regarding the circular and the decision-making process. The consultation would be done imminently.

Code of ethics review

The sub-committee noted that work was underway to review the Code of Ethics. The first College guidelines committee meeting had taken place. This had been established to examine the policing principles and ethical decision making and research strategy being used to look at the review. In parallel to the above work, the CoP was setting up a separate group to organise the work looking at the text describing the Standards of Professional Behaviour in the Code (SoPB).

John Partington’s (PFEW) said that PFEW’s view was that the work on the text describing the SoPB in the Code should not sit entirely with the CoP and that consideration should be given instead to setting up a sub-group of the Discipline Sub-Committee, led by the HO which owns the SoPB contained in the Police (Conduct) regulations. Any word in the Code that affects or interprets the SoPB should sit with the PABEW.

Action Point 9: The Chair and CoP to consider with PABEW/DSC members ownership of work around the wording of the SoPB in the Code of Ethics.

Home Office legislation update

A table documenting forthcoming and outstanding regulations and determinations was shared with members. HO reported they still had limited legal resources and so prioritised essentially the most simple legislative work first and then come to the more complex work further down the line.

Annex F to implement the pay progression standard – the draft for this was expected to be ready for consultation from Monday for six weeks.

Annex G - there were some amendments to correct anomalies in overtime rates. HO have been working with colleagues and have received some helpful feedback from PFEW. They hoped to be in a position for consultation in the next few weeks.

On the three outstanding issues, most of them had previous consultations on them. So in the first instance, HO will be going back through those consultation responses, and comparing that to where the regulations are at the moment, and what the policy position is at that moment to try and assess whether the consultations that have happened previously were still valid. From there, HO will be able to make a decision about whether they need to do further consultations to go back to the beginning, or whether they will be able to use material they have already and then move forward.

AOB / date of next meeting

There was a discussion about in person and online meetings which would be considered by the Chair.

The next meeting was scheduled for 1 February 2022.

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 finalise minutes of 23 July and publish on webpage.	28 October 2021	Secretariat	Ongoing - finalised yet to be published
2. James Walker to take back conversations regarding their payment structure on bonus payments within secondment guidance to CoP and report to HO.	28 October 2021	College of Policing	Update - CoP have tried to engage HO and have raised concerns with PABEW and the current guidance. Therefore engaged the associations to bottom out the matter on CSA payments for future secondments.
3. HO to check whether secondment guidance issue is a wider issue and clarify principles from last Secondment WG meeting.	28 October 2021	Home Office	Ongoing
4. HO to provide written update on whether there was a continuing need to re-attest police officers when transferring from one force to another.	28 October 2021	Home Office	-
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	Update - CoP are seeking to make any necessary revisions to the summary report and should be able to provide the update at the next board.
6. HO to clarify if there had been any consideration about the position of officers with pre-settled status, who can take a career break or other break in service and leave the UK for more than two years and then be unable to apply for indefinite leave to remain.	28 October 2021	Home Office	-
7. Chair to arrange individual conversation with staff association and thereafter a working group meeting to discuss SAB.	28 October 2021	Chair	Completed - scheduled for 30 November.
8. Chair to write to the minister setting out implications of the lack of response to Staff Association’s letter.	28 October 2021	Chair	Ongoing

Outstanding action points from previous meetings	Date of the meeting	To be completed by	Status
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	Completed

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

23 July 2021

NPCC

Completed - in addition to the plans attached for pay reform, the NPCC will also provide the key NRT & PT 2022 / 23 milestones once signed off by PCS Board.  As we are soon to enter a new financial year, we believe it is more appropriate to provide these.