Remedy arrangements for police pension schemes: FOI Review

Information requested

Original request 202500468662

This FOI request concerns the SPPA responsibilities around the 2015 Remedy arrangements for police pension schemes and the decisions around prioritisation of the issue of Remediable Service Statements (RSSs) and the fact that SPPA breached the 31st March statutory deadline to issue RSSs to thousands of pensioners in financial detriment.

Specifically,

1. How many RSSs were issued in May 2025?

2. What was the categorisation of the RSSs issued in this month?

3. How many non-complex RSSs remained to be issued after 31st May 2025?

4. Why has the new automation processes failed to deliver all the non-complex RSSs by the SPPA issued deadline date of 31st May 2025?

5. Between October 2023 and March 2025, the SPPA issued numerous website updates and emails stating that non-protected pensioners in financial detriment would have their RSS issue prioritised over fully protected previously retired officers who were in no financial detriment during that period. In March 2025 that prioritisation commitment inexplicably changed and SPPA decided to prioritise the issue of 2831 RSSs to fully protected retired officers and did not deliver a single RSS in March 2025 to non-protected pensioners in financial detriment. Who at SPPA decided to do this and what was the reason for completely changing the prioritisation criteria? To be clear there was also no concurrent approach in March either.

6. Why did SPPA not specifically explain at an early stage on their website that all the 2831 RSSs issued in March 2025 were going to fully protected officers? Did they not think pensioners in financial detriment deserved this when it was obvious SPPA were already announcing not being able to meet the deadline and invoking the clause in Section 29 10/b of the PSPJOA?

Response

I have now completed my review of our response to your original FOI request, reference 202500468662, under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA).

I have concluded that the original decision should be confirmed, with modifications.

My decision is based on the view that information was not deliberately withheld, rather, the response reflected the responder’s genuine understanding of the request at the time. However, I acknowledge that there were parts of the original questions that were not fully answered. These omissions may have resulted from a lack of clarity or context at the time of the original response. I believe that additional context would have been helpful, and that context is now available and has been provided below. Furthermore, there are specific areas where we could have offered more comprehensive information, and I have addressed those in this review.

In conducting this internal review, I have identified several elements of your original request that were not fully addressed in the initial response and which fall within the scope of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. These will be considered as part of this review. Specifically, I will address: the absence of a numerical breakdown of the Remediable Service Statements (RSSs) issued in May 2025 by category (Tapered, Protected, Unprotected); the lack of information identifying who at SPPA made the decision to change the prioritisation strategy for RSS issuance; the rationale behind that change in prioritisation; and the reasoning for not disclosing, at an early stage, that all 2,831 RSSs issued in March 2025 were to fully protected officers.

Please note that the FOI review process is limited to assessing compliance with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. Concerns regarding service quality, communication tone, or perceived fairness fall outside the scope of this review. These matters have been noted and will be referred to our Complaints Team for separate handling in accordance with our complaints procedure.

Question 2 – Numerical Breakdown of RSSs Issued in May 2025

Upon review, I find that the original FOI request, reference 202500468662, did not explicitly ask for a numerical/percentage breakdown of the categories of RSSs issued. The response provided a general description of the categories processed, which was a reasonable interpretation of the question and did not withhold information.

However, as the SPPA does hold the breakdown and in the interest of transparency and completeness, I am happy to provide that information below:

• 81% were issued to Tapered members
• 17% were issued to Protected members
• 2% were issued to Unprotected members

Question 5 – Prioritisation Strategy and Decision-Making

The original FOI response explained that all cohorts were being progressed concurrently due to the statutory deadlines. While this was a reasonable interpretation of the question, it did not fully address the specific query regarding who at SPPA made the decision and why the prioritisation criteria changed. Furthermore, I acknowledge that further context would have helped clarify the rationale behind the approach taken.

To clarify, SPPA continues to prioritise members in financial detriment, which typically, but not exclusively, includes unprotected members. The delivery of RSSs to unprotected members was delayed due to delays in the development of complex calculations required for unprotected members. During this period, SPPA were unable to progress work within this cohort as a result of having to seek clarification from HM Treasury and the Government Actuary’s Department (GAD).

Rather than halting all RSS activity, while awaiting this clarification, SPPA progressed delivery within other cohorts, including protected members. This approach ensured continued progress toward meeting statutory obligations and did not disadvantage unprotected members, as their RSS processing was paused until further clarification from HM Treasury and GAD was received.

Question 6 – Communication of March 2025 RSS Issuance

Most of the concerns raised in response to the original reply for question 6, fall outside the scope of the FOI review process and are more appropriately considered under our complaints handling procedures, as they relate to service standards, tone, and communication strategy rather than requests for recorded information. You can find more information on the complaints process here: Make a complaint - gov.scot However, two specific points do fall within the scope of the FOI review: (1) a request for a specific explanation as to why SPPA did not disclose that all 2,831 RSSs issued in March 2025 were to fully protected officers, and (2) a request for the rationale behind the change in prioritisation of RSS issuance.

The original response stated that SPPA was not obliged to publish specific details about the March 2025 RSS issuance on its website. This is factually accurate in terms of FOI obligations. My review has found that no information was withheld in this regard, as SPPA does not hold any internal communications, meeting notes, or documents explaining a decision to withhold such information. Rather, the information was published in good faith and without intent to mislead and I found no information to suggest otherwise.

Regarding the second point, the rationale for the change in prioritisation of RSS issuance is addressed above within response to Question 5, which outlines the concurrent processing approach and the factors influencing prioritisation, including awaiting guidance from other Government departments

About FOI

The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at https://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.