Subscribe to updates
You'll receive weekly summaries about Staffordshire Council every week.
If you have any requests or comments please let us know at community@opencouncil.network. We can also provide custom updates on particular topics across councils.
Pensions Board - Friday, 27 March 2026 - 1:30pm
March 27, 2026 at 1:30 pm Pensions Board View on council websiteSummary
Open Council Network is an independent organisation. We report on Staffordshire and are not the council. About us
The Pensions Board of Staffordshire Council was scheduled to discuss the Staffordshire Pension Fund's Data Quality Scores and Data Improvement Plan, as well as review the Investment Risk Register. Updates were also anticipated regarding the Local Government Association and Scheme Advisory Board.
Data Quality Scores and Data Improvement Plan
The meeting was scheduled to consider the Staffordshire Pension Fund's Data Quality Scores for 2025. The report pack indicated a Common Data Score of 97.4%, an increase from 97.2% in 2024. The Scheme Specific Data Score was reported as 95.98%, a decrease from 97.04% in 2024.
The report detailed that Common Data
includes core information such as Name, NI Number, Date of Birth, and Addresses, while Scheme Specific Data
encompasses elements like pension service history, pensionable earnings, and Career Average Revalued Earnings (CARE). These scores are measured against targets set by The Pensions Regulator (TPR), which requires 100% accuracy for data created after June 2010 and 95% accuracy for data created before that date.
A Data Improvement Plan (DIP) was also scheduled for review. This plan outlines identified data issues, methods for correction, responsibilities, and expected timescales. Key areas of focus for the 2025 DIP included common data addresses, scheme-specific CARE benefits, and the ongoing work to correct records for McCloud1 protections.
Staffordshire Pension Fund Risk Register - Investments
The Board was also scheduled to review the Staffordshire Pension Fund's Risk Register, specifically focusing on investment-related risks. The report indicated that five areas were considered high risk and twelve were medium risk, with many of these scores having increased. These high-risk areas were primarily linked to the Fit for the Future
consultation and new directives from the upcoming Local Government Pension Scheme (Pooling, Management and Investment of Funds) Regulations 2026.
Specific high-risk areas mentioned included:
- The monitoring of the Strategic Asset Allocation (SAA) and the ability to make allocation decisions without advice from LGPS Central Limited (LGPSC).
- The risk of increased operating costs or reduced forecast savings from LGPSC impacting the Fund's return, given its expansion and increased budgeted costs.
- The potential loss of key personnel, knowledge, and skills within LGPSC and the Fund due to retirements, pooling changes, and the movement of transactional activities to LGPSC.
- The risk of regulatory changes impacting LGPSC and the Fund.
Medium-risk areas included concerns about LGPSC's ability to appoint suitable managers, provide a sufficient range of products, and maintain an appropriate manager monitoring service. Risks related to LGPSC not considering asset class correlations, manager styles, systemic risk factors, and currency risk were also noted.
Local Government Association/Scheme Advisory Board Update
An update was scheduled to be provided by the Local Government Association (LGA) and the Scheme Advisory Board (SAB). This update was expected to cover the Pensions Dashboard Programme (PDP), government consultations on areas such as access and fairness, gender pensions gaps, and scheme improvements. It was also anticipated to include information on the Fit for Future
programme, focusing on governance, pooling, and investment regulations. The SAB's annual review and their statement on the management of the LGPS were also on the agenda.
-
The McCloud1 case refers to a legal challenge concerning age discrimination in public sector pension schemes, specifically the transition from the legacy CARE[^2] scheme to the new CARE scheme. It led to a requirement for certain members to be remediated to ensure they were not disadvantaged by the transition. ↩
Topics
No topics have been identified for this meeting yet.
Meeting Documents
Agenda