Transparency data

SAB meeting minutes: 1 July 2021

Updated 16 September 2024

Applies to England and Wales

27th Meeting, 1 July 2021, 10:30 – 15:30

Minutes

Members present:

Independent Chair

Julia Mulligan

Secretariat

Afsana Begum

Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW)

Alex Duncan (SAB Member) Mike Brown Gemma Lofts Sarah Lumley

Police Superintendents’ Association (PSA)

Dan Murphy (SAB Member) Eamonn Carroll

Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC)

Andy Tremayne (SAB Member) Charlotte Radford (SAB Member)

Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association (CPOSA)

Shabir Hussain (SAB Member)

National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC)

James Hurley (SAB Member) Kevin Courtney Claire Alcock

National Association of Retired Police Officers (NARPO) Steve Edwards (SAB Member)

Home Office (HO)

Frances Clark Cat Weston Rosetta Thomas Wadha Salah Sara Alderman

Scottish Police Federation (SPF)

Calum Steele

Superintendent’s Association of Northern Ireland (SANI)

Represented by PSA

Association of Scottish Police Superintendents (ASPS)

Craig Suttie

Scottish government

Mhairi Kinnaird

Police Federation Northern Ireland (PFNI)

Liam Kelly

Department of Justice, Northern Ireland (DoJNI)

Antonia Hoskins

Scottish Police Authority

Sharon Dalli

Welcome and apologies

1. The Superintendents’ Association of Northern Ireland (SANI) were represented by PSA.

2. Rob Fornear and Samantha Watts from GAD attended the meeting to cover relevant agenda items.

3. Claire Alcock would be replacing James Hurley (NPCC) in due course and was present at the meeting.

Minutes of the meeting 12 May 2021

4. The minutes of the previous quarterly meeting were agreed. Action Point 1: Secretariat to publish finalised minutes of 12 May 2021 on webpage.

Action log of 12 May 2021

5. The Chair went through the action log of 12 May, which has been updated in the light of discussion. Key points discussed were:

Action Point 8 (Engagement with BTP re leavers continuing from April 2022) – Iain Coltman and HO have begun engagement with British Transport Police Authority and their advisers, with a meeting to set out a framework for discussion due in the coming weeks. GAD will support those discussions.

Action Point 9 (Pension flexibilities and accepted principle for police pensions schemes) – Dan Murphy (PSA) asked again whether there would be a consultation similar to that undertaken for the NHS pension scheme on pension flexibilities for policing, and if the HO would advocate on behalf of the SAB, as the SAB had been raising similar issues and requesting similar flexibilities to those being consulted on in respect of the NHS for some while. At the last meeting, there was a discussion about having a business case that could be put forward to HMT by HO, and about the agreement (accepted principle) that there would be an equal arrangement across the public sector.

Frances Clark (HO) said she had conversations with Dan Murphy (PSA) offline about the data available to present a business case showing detriment to the workforce. PSA requested engagement with HMT to try and resolve the tax penalties that the police officers were facing. Dan reiterated the need for parity across the public sector, and that a similar consultation as that for the NHS should be made available to policing. Action Point 2: HO to understand the NHS business case used for pension flexibilities consultation with NHS/HMT Colleagues, to be able to understand the data requirements.

Alex Duncan (PFEW) noted that there had long been a convention (as part of the mitigation for lack of industrial rights) that the treatment of police officers would receive parity with other parts of the public sector (Calum Steele (SPA) confirmed Alex’s understanding). If this convention was no longer to be honoured, then why not and what is the justification for this change of stance?

Action Point 10 (Draft EIA – Scotland) – The scheme specific EqIA remained in draft and will be worked up following review of the Pensions Remedy Bill Clauses, supporting documents and Impact assessment are due in July.

Action Point 14 (Costs arising from CPI movement) – This action was ongoing.

Action Point 15 (Composite version of the 2015 regulations) – HO said there would not be a formal legal document but they would produce a composite version of the amended/up-to-date regulations (for use as a point of reference) once the amendments reflecting the remedy were in place. Mike Brown (PFEW) confirmed that this reflected what he had suggested at the previous SAB meeting that a non-legal version was the request.

The Chair went on to discuss the outstanding action points from previous meetings which had been updated in the light of discussions:

Action Point 10 from 11 January (Exit payments/commutation cap) - It was established that SAB’s concern in this area is not actually about exit payments, but rather SAB’s request to lift the commutation cap. HO acknowledged that this (commutation cap) was a long running issue; Frances Clark explained the analogous provision had been introduced in the firefighters’ pension scheme, and HO have previously drafted (and consulted on) amending regulations to give effect to this in the same way.  However, the feedback from consultation was that SAB members did not like the requirement for the additional payments to be met by employers. This had been raised by Dan Murphy (PSA) to the Home Secretary, and HO would be working on this further.

There was a discussion about the source of payments and the need to resolve that re-occurring issue; the difference of opinion between the HO and Staff Associations as to whether the money for exit payments would come from HMT or from Chief Officers’ budgets. Shabir Hussain (CPOSA) asked whether the Home Office position was a legally binding direction or ministerial opinion? Action Point 3: HO to answer whether there is a legal basis to direct the Chief Constable to fund the difference if the change is made to remove the commutation cap..

Action Point 11 from 11 January (IB guidance and IHR) – HO are in correspondence with PFEW to clarify how inconsistent outcomes can be addressed by revising the existing guidance, in order to take this action point forward.

Action Point 12 from 2 April 2020 (Pensionable pay) - The HO had previously provided a summary policy position of what constitutes pensionable pay in the police pension schemes following Booth v Mid and West Wales Fire Rescue Authority [2019]. The HO view was that it is for individual scheme managers to obtain their own legal advice regarding any specific queries that may arise. Mike Brown (PFEW) stated that the position was not clearly set out in the governing regulations for the schemes. He went on to state that identifying what elements of a member’s remuneration are used to calculate contributions and accrue benefits is a fundamental and crucial function of the governing provisions of a scheme, not a “nice to have” or the function of a “policy position”. The government is the sponsor of the schemes and the Home Office are responsible for the governing regulations, therefore a clear and consistent position should be reflected in the scheme regulations. Dan Murphy (PSA) agreed with Mike and said it was the SAB’s role to advise scheme administrators. He said the pension scheme was enacted by government, yet the government could not or would not define what constituted pensionable pay so as to ensure consistency. The HO agreed to look at this matter again – action point ongoing.

Action Point 2 from 13 January 2020 (Scheme sanction charge) - This is currently with HO lawyers. Dan Murphy (PSA) and Shabir Hussain (CPOSA) said this would need to be resolved before the pensions remedy, as he thought the two are related. Their view was that there needed to be certainty on what has happened in the past on who owes what.

Matters arising: Police Pensions Remedy – SAB TWG update

6. A SAB Technical Working Group meeting was held on 17th June 2021 to cover the police pensions remedy. Action points from the meeting are being progressed by the HO and will be dealt with at the next TWG.  Since the meeting, HO’s current understanding was that the McCloud Bill would be introduced very shortly, ahead of summer recess. It is subject to final clearances and HO would update the SAB once this is confirmed from HMT. As agreed at the TWG meeting, HO intended to host a session on parliamentary process (joint with the Fire SAB) in July. Depending on Bill timings, they would also focus on the content of the Bill. HO lawyers currently working on remedy will also be in attendance to support the session.

7. At the TWG meeting, there was a considerable amount of frustration from SAB members as the HO could not comment on certain matters which were subject to ongoing litigation. This was creating considerable difficulties for members at a pressurised time where matters needed resolving and was deemed unacceptable.

8. Shabir Hussain (CPOSA) had a follow up question from one submitted at the TWG; would participation in this process, negate any future claims or potential claims because some lawyer may say participation equals agreement with what’s on offer? He felt it was crucial to have an ongoing legal right to challenge things regarded as unfair or discriminatory and not have that participation held against SAB members. This would be checked by HO lawyers for a further response. Action Point 4: HO to consider CPOSA’s question around ongoing legal right to challenge unfair or discriminatory issues and not have that participation held against SAB members.

9. Dan Murphy (PSA) said that he could not find any reference to the removal of Section 23 Pensions Act or the altering of it within the consultation. He asked why the government had not consulted the SAB on removing this protection for members within pension regulations and noted that despite this it had been included in the McCloud factsheet provided by HO.

10. HO recognised the frustration of the staff associations and said they were keen to engage in a constructive way. Once the Bill is introduced this would give the HO the scope to have a much freer conversation in respect of the secondary legislation. The Chair took away an action at the TWG meeting to write to the HMT about around the risks in their approach, this would need to include an input of content from Members. Action Point 5: Chair to consider how to register SAB’s concern regarding removal of section 23 Pensions Act (without consulting SAB on it).

GAD – SCAPE discount rate

11. HO informed the SAB that HMT will be holding an engagement session on the cost cap for five SAB members to attend (Representatives from PSA, PFEW, CPOSA, NPCC and APCC). This would be held around mid-July and is yet to be confirmed.

12. Rob Fornear (GAD) circulated a short briefing note which covered both items. He provided a summary of the content and the questions being asked of respondents in the consultations. He also touched on the potential actuarial impacts of the proposals. GAD is also intending to hold a webinar in mid-July, in which they would go through the report on the cost cap mechanism in more detail.

13. 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.

14. James Hurley (NPCC) said it would be helpful to get further details because of the enormity of the number of the impact at face value and to get some interpretation of the potential impact of the latest IPR protection and understand how the two different measuring methods can create potentially higher employer pressure. As it was a very technical area, it was agreed a TWG meeting would be held after the HMT engagement session to help the SAB to navigate their way to drafting a consultation response. SAB members would also submit their questions for HMT in advance of the engagement session. Action Point 6: Secretariat to arrange a TWG post HMT engagement session on cost cap.

15. There was a discussion about getting independent advice from an Actuary due to the complex technical nature of the issue. Concerns were raised by Dan Murphy (PSA) about HMT not considering detailed submissions put forward by either the SAB or individual associations. He felt they were ignored by HMT and had no confidence in submitting a response to them. Action Point 7: Frances Clark (HO) to check whether independent advice from an Actuary can be available to the SAB.

GAD - Cost Control mechanism consultation

16. 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 the 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.

17. Dan Murphy (PSA) asked whether there is an EIA as part of the public sector equality responsibilities. Samantha (GAD) pointed out that in each of the consultation documents, there was a little section about equality impact in sections 5.3 and 5.37. Action Point 8: Frances Clark (HO) to check with HMT if the consultations on the SCAPE discount rate and the cost control mechanism have full EIAs.

18. James Hurley (NPCC) raised that within the consultation there is a table setting out retirement assumptions; global assumption that unprotected members can carry on working past 30 years and not retire until 55. He said it would be helpful to get some information and visibility on the assumption and if there is a potential material impact if this assumption is not correct. Action Point 9: James Hurley (NPCC) to forward question for GAD regarding retirement assumption to Secretariat. This will be shared with SAB and then sent to GAD via HO.

(Draft) HO Police Pensions Comms Package - Benefits of membership of the 2015 CARE Scheme

19. HO thanked members for their comments on the draft comms package which reflected differing views. HO was currently collating these comments and would look to make a decision on next steps shortly. The HO will think about stripping back the package quite significantly in order to meet all the comments and views, and thereafter pass it back out to the SAB.

20. Alex Duncan (PFEW) said it was basic level questions that needed covering in the package in a simplistic way. It was essential to differentiate between the requirements of existing members who may need to know about the pensions remedy, and the requirements of new joiners who just need basic information about pensions and it was this later group which we had requested/suggested the production of relevant material for. PSA supported PFEW’s position and confirmed that this was what had been requested in the first place.

21. Sharon Dalli (Scottish Government) offered to share with the SAB some relevant material that had been produced in Scotland.

Reports from Scottish SAB and Northern Ireland’s SAB

22. The Scottish SAB covered the restricted commutation in the 1987 scheme and issues around automatic enrolment and eligibility for ill health. They also looked at aspects of pay and allowances in the police service.

23. The Northern Ireland SAB (SABNI) met in June and discussed the valuation results received. Currently the SABNI is considering their response to the GADs recommended approach to the data and methodology and assumptions report, and also for the pension dashboards call for input. The other matter (discussed previously) was the written correspondence to the NI Justice Minister on the 2.25 commutation. The Minister agreed in principle to remove the current restrictions subjectto availability within the legislative timetable and Department of Finance approval under the Public Sector Pensions Act (NI). SABNI had also asked whether the change would be applied without qualification or at discretion of the employer. The Minister decided in principle, to mirror the approach taken by the Home Office where flexibility remains at the discretion of the employer.

Matters for SAB decision:

a) Consistency on administration of scheme

24. Alex Duncan (PFEW) raised the issue of the Immediate Detriment guidance and that Merseyside had interpreted it as advising forces and administrators not to implement ID. This causes concern as it is likely to lead to further in litigation. He made the point that it was unacceptable to effectively prevent people who had already been found to have been unlawfully discriminated against from retiring and taking up future opportunities.

25. James Hurley (NPCC) said when the guidance was issued, NPCC wrote out to forces. They had previously shared legal advice, which set out a number of significant risks. Alongside the legal advice, they also shared a note, which sets out how the guidance could be taken forward. Forces were due to return feedback to NPCC within a week’s time. NPCC’s top priority was the commitment on the implementation side of ID. In terms of communication, NPCC were aware that it would put more onus on those individual forces, to be able to present their position and engage with their members. There would still be engagement from pension administrators separately.

26. Shabir Hussain (CPOSA) said his reading of the Employment Appeal Tribunal on Sargeant and the London Fire Commissioner was that there is a positive duty on the employer to set aside scheme regulations and actively promote equality by eradicating all discrimination, no matter what the pension regulations say and invited comment from Clair Alcock from a Fire SAB perspective. Clair Alcock said it is difficult to comment as it is dealt with by the employer. The employers have a way of working through a steering group which meant that all employers were notified to the effect of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. It was a difficult issue and the Fire SAB have had challenging conversations.

27. Dan Murphy (PSA) said it was important to reflect on the fact that there would be 43 legal teams who would be doing the same work and possibly reaching different conclusions. He also reiterated that pensionable pay is a good example of a situation where consistency was needed. Finally, Dan asked what the consistent approach across forces would be for providing financial assistance to members who wanted to deal with their annual allowance? He said there also needed to be answers on who would be responsible for making the decision on the answer to his question.

b) SAB’s role in pension remedy

28. At the last quarterly meeting, there was a discussion around the role of the SAB with regards to the remedy. Further, members raised wider concerns, not just in relation to the remedy but also about how the SAB operates. The Chair proposed that she would pick up conversations with individual members. As agreed previously, the Chair would collate views and come back to the next meeting with a summary of those views and next steps.

AOB/Date of next meeting

29. Alex Duncan (PFEW) made the SAB aware of the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts report on public sector pensions that was published on the 11th of June 2021. It was highly critical of the way in which HMT had introduced the transitional protections and subsequently had dealt with the need for remedy. It suggested, among other things, that there is a lack of attention or consideration given to opt out rates and no attempt to address pension inequalities between genders and different age groups. It was agreed that the Home Office would liaise with HMT to ascertain whether they are fully considering the report and intend to respond to the recommendations that are contained within it. Action Point 10: HO to liaise with HMT to ascertain if the House of Commons public sector pension report was being considered and whether they intended to respond to the recommendations that are contained in the report.

30. The next quarterly meeting is scheduled for 6th October.

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 finalised minutes of 12 May 2021 on webpage.	1 July 2021	Secretariat	Completed
2. HO to understand the NHS business case used for pension flexibilities consultation with NHS/HMT Colleagues, to be able to understand the data requirements.	1 July 2021	HO
3. HO to answer whether there is a legal basis to direct the Chief Constable to fund the difference if the change is made to remove the commutation cap.	1 July 2021	HO	Ongoing
4. HO to consider CPOSA’s question around ongoing legal right to challenge unfair or discriminatory issues and not have that participation held against SAB members.	1 July 2021	HO
5. Chair to consider how to register SAB’s concern regarding removal of section 23 Pensions Act (without consulting SAB on it).	1 July 2021	Chair	Ongoing
6. Secretariat to arrange a TWG post HMT engagement session on cost cap.	1 July 2021	Secretariat	Completed
7. Frances Clark (HO) to check whether independent advice from an Actuary can be available to the SAB.	1 July 2021	Frances Clark, HO	Completed - HO offered additional support and further access to GAD colleagues to answer SAB’s questions in preparing their response to the consultation. The SAB took up support from First Actuarial.
8. Frances Clark (HO) to check with HMT if consultation on SCAPE discount rate and cost control mechanism has full EIA.	1 July 2021	Frances Clark, HO	Completed
9. James Hurley (NPCC) to forward question for GAD regarding retirement assumption to Secretariat. This will be shared with SAB and then sent to GAD via HO.	1 July 2021	James Hurley, NPCC.	Ongoing
10. HO to liaise with HMT to ascertain if the House of Commons public sector pension report is being considered and whether they intended to respond to the recommendations that are contained in the report.	1 July 2021	HO	Completed

Outstanding from previous meeting	Date of the meeting	Who/date to be completed by:	Status – to be updated and re-circulated before the next meeting
5. Chair to contact SAB Members to discuss the role of SAB/PAB.	12 May 2021	Chair	Ongoing This will be a wider piece of work. A discussion guide has been drafted and meetings will be arranged.
8. Iain Coltman (Scottish Gov) to engage with BTP and HO, on possible arrangements regarding leavers continuing from April 2022.	12 May 2021	Iain Coltman (Scottish Gov)	Ongoing SG and HO have begun engagement with British Transport Police Authority and their advisers, with a meeting to set out a framework for discussion due in the coming weeks. GAD will support those discussions.
9. HO to consider pension flexibilities and position on the accepted principle for police pensions schemes.	12 May 2021	Home Office	Ongoing Linked to Action Point 2 from 1 July 2021.
10. Iain Coltman to check and distribute draft EIA to SAB.	12 May 2021	Iain Coltman (Scottish Gov)	Ongoing The scheme specific EqIA remains in draft and will be worked up following review of the Pensions Remedy Bill Clauses, supporting documents and Impact assessment due in July.
10. Frances Clark (HO) to report back to SAB on the definition and therefore the source of exit payments.	11 January 2021	Frances Clark, Home Office	Ongoing The HO circulated a response to the SAB via email outlining their position on exit payments however the SAB clarified the request at the quarterly meeting - “Will the HO remove the commutation cap? If not, what is their justification for not doing so?”
11. Frances Clark (HO) to review the issues within the existing guidance for improvements, (in respect of IB awards and IHR), to ensure there are consistencies of administration of Injury on Duty and Ill Health Retirement.	11 January 2021	Frances Clark, Home Office	Ongoing
12. Home Office to take matters regarding clarity of what constitutes as pensionable pay in the pension scheme regulations to lawyers.	02 April 2020	Home Office	Ongoing The HO provided a summary on 8 April about policy position of what constitutes as pensionable pay in the pension scheme regulations following Booth v Mid and West Wales Fire Rescue Authority [2019]. Members were not content with the response therefore HO agreed to consider comments further.
2. Home Office to provide guidance on scheme sanction charges to secretariat and Chair.	13 January 2020	Home Office	Ongoing This was currently with HO lawyers.
6. Home Office to look at previous advice provided on re-joiners with HMT.	13 January 2020	Home Office	Ongoing HO provided an update on 12 March. This issue has been delayed due to cross-cutting issues with the more detailed policy development on Remedy. HO are working to resolve this as soon as possible. The focus should be on new wording rather than the current position.