Transcript

To the pension board, my name is Philippa Terry and I'm chairing today's meeting. So we will have this meeting recorded and it's uploaded online. So just to check that no one has any objections to that. No. Good. Okay. Philippa, you've done this before. I have. I do it for Philippa quite a lot actually. So just to say that if anyone does drop off this call, obviously just try and reconnect or let Christine know if you've got any problems. Moving on to item two, which is apologies for absence. And we've obviously already received apologies from Tej, but we have everybody else here present. So that's great. And in terms of item three, which is have we got any disclosures of interest? Is there any body that has to disclose? No. Look at this. 601 and we're already on to item four. So item four is just to agree the minutes of the previous meeting on the 8th of July, which everybody has received. So can I ask if people are in agreement with the minutes from the last meeting? Yes. Sorry, do you mind if I just interject? Sorry, what I just picked up sort of just in relation to the report, not on the agenda, and I didn't pick up just reviewing the notes now, but on page 13 of the pack, the action log normally comes under its own heading, but it was just coming at the end or sort of a gap in the page just after the minutes of the last meeting. I was just going to say, should we pick up this item? Because it's after it's the minutes of the pension committee. Yeah, that's fine. So we can have a look at that now, if you want. Perfect. So just to kind of sort of run through just in relation just to the item numbers. So PB047, just a bit of background. So this was a request sort of made in 2022 and been a request to remain on the action log was when internal audit will carry out any kind of compliance audit in relation to the pension fund. Just in relation to the updates of the general code of practice was set up or has come into place, but we now are going through the stage of reviewing our own compliance against it and producing sort of an action log in order to address full compliance. And so once we have that up and running, I'll be looking to approach internal audit to see whether for the 25/26 financial year, they will be considering any kind of audit again on it. In relation to the PB049, I believe this one can now be closed. I believe Jackie forwarded communication and also we've got the communication policy coming up later in the agenda pack. And PB050. This again, Jackie has kind of responded to and closed off last year's pension board. I believe the 20 current years papers ready for it have also been agreed by Tej now, but if I might just ask if we can just have an action just to check with Jackie and Tej that is cleared and ready for the annual report. The annual report has actually been published on the website. Perfect, thank you. So that one also, or it's marked as closed, so that could have just come off. So the 61, that was just actually just bringing finance to the meeting, and that was an action again should have been closed for it. So everyone's in agreement that also can be closed because obviously we have to stand in line for the pension committee minutes. PB62. We reached out to the chair and he reviewed, he needed a few questions, which we then got, which were answered through our investment advisor, so that can be closed off as well. Perfect. And this PB063 is an item that I did discuss with chair just before the meeting, and it was just to confirm whether access is received in the abundant water and lighting system for the member training. Logging details being re-circulated. Jackie. Sorry, I'm fumbling around trying to get teams back up whilst looking at something else. All the logins were sent from Enlightened themselves from Barnet Waddingham, so I can't resend them, I can ask them to send them yet again. I did get a full list of everybody who has already logged on to that, so if you still haven't seen anything from Enlightened, please speak now and I'll get back to them. I haven't, Jackie, but I'm wondering, they're not going to be stopped or going to junk, something like that, are they? I definitely don't know, Christine or Cathy, if you've received anything either. Yeah, I received mine and I completed, but I haven't had anything since then. Just something about, they've changed their website. Christine, was that what you showed me? Yeah. Yeah, Jackie, I've not got nothing, I need... Please. OK, I'll get onto that tomorrow morning or possibly after this mid-noot, so I don't forget. I'll get onto them and get them to be re-sent to you. Yes, Christine, I have seen that you've been logged in and gone through those, so thank you very much for those. And thanks all. PB 0064, Jackie would send out the KPIs to compare SLAs against the contract. That's something you have been able to do, Jackie. If not, then remain open. OK, we keep that item up. And then the final one, Rakesh, I don't know if you'd pick up in Stephen's absence, PB 065, discussed with Rakesh and Stephen at the upcoming meeting between the board and committee. The question regarding the fund from the chair would also be flagged with Stephen. Yeah, I'm not sure which question that was. There were a couple of questions we answered for Tej. OK. OK, there's two things. One was regarding the investment strategy update, which we did send out. I think the other thing was in relation to the hedging. I think we were talking about the equity hedge previously. I wasn't at the meeting, Stephen was at the meeting, and I think Tej was questioning regarding what the committee had agreed regarding the equity hedge. And there was some communication that we did send out to the chair on that. I'll just double check that. Just to ensure that we've got a record of it. I think that's probably sometime in July, wasn't it? Yes. OK. That's everything, isn't it, James, looking at the action log? Yes. OK. Coming back to item four, that was just to ask, is everybody happy to agree the minutes of the previous pension committee meeting that was on the 24th of July? Yep. OK. Can I just note something? At the pension committee, I was asked to make some amendments. I haven't done that yet. So it's just a name. It's just there was a wrong name for a presenter. So that will be changed. So just note that. That was for the one this month, though, wasn't it? No, no, it was from the 24th. When Andrew Brigden came in, I think they put down Barry as the presenter. It's because I just had his email, so I thought it was him. So anyway, so I'll change that and that will be obviously corrected. Can I just ask a question just regarding the committee? Obviously, you've got Unite and Unis in there. Is there no one there for GMB? On the committee? There is. Is it Stella? I think. I haven't seen Stella. Yeah, I think she's on the list. She's on the list, but she hasn't come recently. If you just bear with me, I can tell you who it is. Loree Hanson, Stella, mechanic and Tony Fernandez. Yeah, so Stella is for GMB. Oh, OK. No, it's just I can't see her name on here. All right. I'm not sure. Should be on there. And Tony Fernandez is for, is it for Unis? He's Unite. Unite, you'll be glory. Yeah, and Stella Ignick is for GMB. Yeah, I just couldn't, I can't see her name on here. I just, that's why I just asked the question who was there for GMB. All right. OK, OK. I can double check into that. I'll double check into that. I'll put in the minutes as well. No worries. OK. So, unfortunately, item six, which was the presentation by Janet of the LPPA around the assurance report, has been cancelled and officers have only made aware of that after the agenda was published. So apologies, but that will be rescheduled for another date. So we're going to move on to item seven, which is the pensions administration update. And that's going to be Jackie presenting the report. Actually, I think the one second, I've got too many pieces open at the moment. I'm writing down notes and I've got myself a little bit confused as to which window I've got open. Do apologise. Right, OK. So, beg your pardon, item seven. Yes, that is, that is me. OK, so I'm going to be going over a bit of an update on Code of Practice, MacLeod and the other legislative items that are mushing along in the background. So to start off with, yes, the Code of Practice, which got launched in January, which came into effect the 27th of March. We have looked through the code ourselves. It is quite a large document. We have contracted our actuaries, Barnet Waddington, to help us to document our compliance with the code. And at the time of actually writing my report, the initial report back from Barnet Waddington was due at any point, but hadn't got it at that time. We have now got it and are reviewing the initial findings, which are, you know, they're fairly favourable, but there's still more work that needs to be done to look into further ensuring our compliance. So that will be looked into by officers over the next few weeks to determine exactly where we need to find evidence to support our compliance. MacLeod, this is, of course, the age discrimination case that was brought against some of the other public sector pension schemes that's now branched out into all public sector pension schemes. The legislation came into effect last year, and we have the first set of compliance in the pension administration software that's been gone in. And so members who are retiring can now have a calculation run against to ensure that they are, whether or not they are entitled to an uplift to ensure that their benefits are not worse off under the current regs as they would be had the old regulations continued on. And also LPPA have identified every record that could potentially, but is in no way, definitely going to have an uplift on it. So it's anybody who is in the right age group, has the right amount of membership and the right times. And there are 5,446 records. As said, that does not mean that we will be paying out anywhere near that number of uplift figures. We have asked that LPPA start, including in their normal quarterly reports, the amounts of members who have actually received an uplift and how much the total uplift is for that quarter, how much it's actually being paid out in annual pension. And we are expecting those figures still to be very small, but hopefully we can start getting those figures out very soon. With regards to exit cap, I haven't, nothing has moved on exit cap for the last couple of years, basically. It was bandied around that when the exit cap came in and then was very quickly taken out again, that something will be brought in to replace it. But we haven't heard, nothing was done underneath the previous government. And as far as we can tell, so far, the current government is not, has not been looking at it at all and is not interested in looking at that at the moment. So what I was wondering is, as I have been asked to in committee, do I leave that still in my report or should I take it out? There's literally nothing new and no way to say that there would be anything new on there. So I'm asking for opinions on that. Just make my report a little bit shorter. Nobody's yelling for me to keep it in there, I might just take it out then. OK. Sorry, Jackie, that's my fault. I was on mute. Would any change, though, have a material effect? And on that basis, is it not worth, even if there's just a reduced one or two liner, just to keep it in there? Because if there were ever any changes, that would have quite an impact, wouldn't it, in terms of the fund? In terms of the pension fund, not really, because it's an employment thing. Right. OK, no, I will amend that slightly. It could, under the old rules, those ones that were in for six weeks and then vanished again, if a member's exit payment, such as redundancy payment or any golden goodbye that they were getting, plus the amount of pension strain costs for the pension that might be being brought into payment at that time, if that total was over $95,000, we actually had to reduce it down, which could mean that we actually then started paying out a reduced pension rather than an unreduced pension, which still sort of balanced out the fund anyway, because if it's being paid out unreduced, the employer has to pay the strain costs anyway, it's just the employer is then paying out slightly less strain costs because it's been capped. So it kind of neutralised itself, but it does have an effect on the pension scheme because of us now perhaps paying out a reduced pension where previously we've been paying out a reduced pension because of the cap. How about, Jackie, if you just literally leave in exit cap with 2.8 and then all of the background can come out, but there's just that line, one or two liner in there to say there have been no further movements on the potential limit on the value. So there's just a very small nod to it that we still leave in just in case at any time it were to change, but it takes out that section above, as you say, just slims the report down a little. Yeah, it's just it's repetition where nothing has changed. So I will amend that for the next one. Sorry, Jackie, just because we ain't a full board, if somebody new starts, they may need that little bit of information as well. If we get somebody new, I can bring the whole thing in if necessary, but yes, I will keep that in mind. Thank you. So things are starting to move closer, obviously we're always moving closer to the deadline for the Pensions Dashboard, and a lot of work has been going on in the background by LPPA and their provider, their Pensions Administration software provider to ensure that we are all compliant with getting on to the Pensions Dashboard on time. We have been advised that we should be getting on, you know, have our data available to the dashboard for next October. That doesn't mean that members will be able to access it then. The actual go live date is not expected to be until January of the following January, but we still need to have our data working alongside the dashboard in about a year's time, and everything seems to be on track for that. So nothing to worry, nothing that's causing any massive problems at the moment or even any real mini problems. Everything seems to be quite smooth on that. I've made a couple of changes or updates on the risk register, which has been included, changed some of the subheadings and a couple of changes of wording and references were made in there listed in the report. So does anyone have any questions with regards to that? Sorry, I was just going to ask on the risk register, has there been an update on showing the less risk that was requested, like, you know, showing, you know, you know, the reduction so that this is a four and now it's a two, like with things put in place? Do you mind if I just pick this one up? So there's a couple of parts on the risk register just to touch on. So I've noticed just on the printed version that you guys would have received the format and it kind of shows the end column has kind of gone out of sequence. It doesn't show as one continuous line. If I may, can I just bring up my screen just so it can show in. It's more of a complete view. You can let me know if you can all see that. Yeah, we can see that James. Thank you. I think there's a little bit still left at the end, can it move over a little bit? Yeah, yeah, it's one of them, it's a big document so it's one of them annoying ones where to show you it all, you won't be able to read it. So yeah, it may be one of them, we'll have to kind of think of a way to kind of show it in a little bit of a different format, but anyway, just to kind of touch on it. So following on sort of for comments for sort of bold really. So we've looked at, obviously this is how the risk register essentially was looking, you know, it's essentially saying this was the start of the year risk. This was the mitigations that are in place and this is what we currently believe it to be. So then I've added additional mitigations. So this is the kind of ones that we already have in place. And these are the kind of the new ones since we've done sort of a full review of the risk register. And I know we're kind of overdue that to kind of have actually done a complete start to finish review of it. We have added a couple of changes to it that Jackie was kind of alluding to, which I'll touch on. But that's the kind of one. So then the target risk level is kind of what you're going to start to do. And this is what we hope to yield or what we kind of yield from it. So I don't know whether that's more in line with what Bald were kind of looking for. It's almost like the initial risk without essentially doing, carrying on as we are, the kind of risk that we've kind of agreed at a certain point in time. And then the additional mitigations that we're looking to put in place to try and take that, you know, as is risk down a little bit. And that's what the kind of almost the as is risk is, is the current risk assessment. And then the target risk is what we hope once we put the additional mitigations in. So just using that as an example, James. We would like to see the target risk come down, wouldn't we? If we're saying we're currently at 2D, we're now going to put in to place these mitigating controls around the enlightened system. Then we should be then actually saying so as a result of doing that, we've managed to reduce the risk level. Yeah, I think it might go to like a 2B or a 1C or something like that. Yeah, kind of. It's one of them. I think we've kind of been quite risk averse with our risk register in the sense of because you're kind of almost seeing of what is the outcome. You know, we're almost seeing is this is what the outcome currently is. It's more of the main thing that really you're kind of mitigating this. Yeah, you are trying to I think there is one that we have been able to sort of take down, which I will touch on. But yeah, so just in relation to just taking the first one, poor governance. So that's where we've just included the enlightened system within the mitigations. So that's what we do. But yeah, I think that's to be honest, I think that's where we just need to kind of work as between sort of finance and admin offices to really. I think that really should be the expectation, though, in terms of having the risk register is that what we're doing, the mitigations that we're putting in place, we should see some result of that. So we're never going to eliminate a risk completely. But ultimately, our goal is always to get it to its lowest level of impact and its lowest likelihood. So for me, I think we should be a bit more open to looking at the target risk goals and actually committing and saying we're going to do this work. And when it's done, we believe that we have been able to therefore reduce the impact and likelihood. Otherwise, if we're going to keep them the same, it almost feels like, well, what's the purpose and the value of putting in all of those mitigations? Because the main objective is to try and bring that risk score down. Yeah, I think it's it's kind of probably almost a legacy where you've kind of got the risk that was already set that included a number of mitigations. And it's a case of you can't remove the risk from it, even if you've got the mitigation for some for some areas, there aren't no there aren't any more further mitigations that can be put in place. So there won't be necessarily movement. But no, I appreciate that. But I'm sure in terms of what we've got on here, we should be able to find a mix of some where we can say the risk rating it's got. We've still got these additional mitigations, but actually we don't believe it's able to reduce the risk level. But then we should be able to look at some and say these mitigations and these controls we're going to put into place. We're confident that there is actually a reduction to the risk levels. As I say, I appreciate with our own background for me and Juniper allergens, for example, that's number one. We can put all the mitigations in place. But ultimately, if somebody gives a child something to eat that they shouldn't and it's human error, we can never eliminate that risk completely. But I do think that there should be a balance here in terms of actively showing that we're trying to mitigate risks and it does have a positive impact. Yeah, I think it is the kind of one I think, I suppose it's that, as we say, it's that kind of the balance between having your mitigations is what you currently have in place to show that you have reduced the risk. But it's almost you almost want to kind of show it without the mitigations, what it would look like. Then you kind of showing your current mitigations and then showing your proposed. So, yeah, I think it's that first column almost kind of deceivingly shows like it doesn't look like we've made any kind of movement. It's just more of what more can we do to get that level. We've worked to get it to a point that we feel comfortable with. It's what more and trying to find the one. So we will kind of look. But as far as the layout, I will come on to the other things that kind of change. Is it kind of more looking how you as a board, you kind of want to see it as presented where you're seeing the overall risk. A bit more detail about the risk, what mitigations we have, further mitigations we have from the target. Is that kind of, although, yes, seeing the target level come down. Yeah, I was going to say, even if you're going to give more detail on the actual initial risk, so maybe the risk number needs to go higher. If that makes sense, I mean, so if there's more risk and more detail that's going to identify 2D being maybe a 3A. Yeah, making that higher. And then you're showing that when you've put in all these mitigations, it's reducing it to a 2D. If that makes sense, because I mean, if you can't bring the end column down any further, then maybe the initial risk needs to be higher. Does that make sense? Yeah, I think I think we will take it away. Like I said, I think it's a piece of work that, like I said, it's overdue. It should have been kind of presented. So it's one that we need to do for the end of the financial year. So like I said, it's going to be a standing item because risk register has to. And like I always say, I'm very thankful for always the challenge that we kind of get, because that's the whole thing is we're trying to secure the fund as best as we can. And it's up to you guys to kind of raise the best way, you know, the bare minimum and the formatting kind of side of it. I mean, I do. I do agree with Philippa. I mean, you're not going to be able to show a reduction in all areas, but there should be a couple or a few that will show that. So no, that's great. So again, this is a kind of additional kind of one we're looking at and what you'll see later, which is a great segue if I would have timed the order of this better, the three year communication policy. So this essentially is what we're going to look to do from next year, because obviously the policy needs to come in from April. What we're going to look to do is have a policy that then covers three years. But then we're actually going to then report what we've done in relation to communication to board. And that's going to start forming a regular item that we have to board is around the communication that we do just to shut ticking off that we're actually doing it. And obviously then it's for board members to kind of challenge the quality. Not necessarily the quality, but kind of are we hitting the areas of, you know, are we in agreement with the policy the way that it's kind of set out currently? So that is kind of where I am. We kind of are going to try and look to sort of improve just in relation to poor communication with stakeholders, because the biggest risk I kind of alluded before the meeting, but just to kind of confirm one of the biggest. Pardon me, the two biggest risks to kind of from an employer perspective is, you know, when a letting authority may go out to tender, a new contract comes out, it's making sure the new employer and the letting authority are aware of their responsibilities in order for a smooth admission in order to be doing it timely. So then there is no risk to the fund or the individuals transferring. In the same way, we're coming up to valuation season next year, you know, it's in an employer's interest to make sure that they're ahead on their queries and their monthly returns in order to avoid the actually having to make assumptions on a sort of a worst case scenario based on the information that they have. So, again, it's, you know, a lot of the Finns obviously would be doing that this year and going through communication, but having more of a policy and a reporting function linked to the policy, I think will kind of strengthen the overall communication to the fund. Because I think that's just one of the things Newham historically needs to kind of work on a little bit more is just getting the message to employers earlier and just having a bit more of a coverage. And then did include just in relation to a new risk, number 22, this was around the delays of not admitting a new employer into the fund on time. So essentially, if we don't have a formal admission, we won't take the contribution. So therefore the fund is short the contribution, which is an impact to the cash flow, albeit a number of the admissions are necessarily smaller, but small employers would soon escalate into sort of a larger gap in the pension fund. But then if an admission isn't taken place, it has an impact on the employees and members. For if there is a retirement case or even a death or an ill health case, it makes it all the more problematic and delays can be caused at a time that you don't need delays. And so that's one that we kind of felt was an important risk to kind of flag up and just how we're kind of dealing with it in relation to monitoring one employer work and the communications that we're kind of doing with employers. So that's kind of the the update in relation to the risk register. Is there any further comments or questions in relation to it? Cathy's got a question. Just regarding the new employers, is there a timescale on which they need to do what they need to do as in transferring over? So the brutal honest one is that they should be engaging with the fund at the point of tender. Unfortunately, it's quite common to engage with the fund at the point of commencing the contract. So after the horse has bolted and then you forever plan a catch up and if it's not done right, there'd be cases where you may get the new employer requiring a bond, which then delays the process. The employer rate may not be necessarily the employer rate that the new employer will be signed up to. And then there'd be more queries and delays and, you know, it can turn into a protracted affair. So actually, we need to be told at the tender stage and that's always a message that we always want to get out to the schools, especially for when they sort of tendering for their catering and cleaning contracts especially. Yeah, because there's quite a few schools going out up to tender now. I heard a rumour about that, yes. So yeah, we will kind of try to look to try and make contact, made aware of a couple if you've got any contacts as well, me and Jackie will bite your hand off to try and cut a corner off before it kind of is a little bit later in the process because we hopefully are already aware, but I can't make guarantees. And therefore, any information, and that's something we're obviously trying to break and hopefully sort of build in with the communication is just trying to get the, you know, when you go out to tender, pensions is actually something a lot more on your sort of higher on the priority list than it currently is, I think. But yeah, anything you can obviously do as well to spread the word and I know you get involved in a lot of these potential, you know, cheapies and stuff like that if they're moving away from the school, so. I'll ping over to you what I know anyway tomorrow. Thank you and I really appreciate that. Okay. I'm just sorry, James, one question for me. So in the pack pages 71 to 74, that's got a date on there of March 2020. If you just give me two secs. This is, yeah, so this risk register, this was actually the original risk register from, you know, essentially that day. Unfortunately, as the publication I think it was a tab still open, so it's come across into the pack. Yeah, so it's, as you can see we we go for a lot more colour these days, which, and trying to obviously incorporate a lot more information on there. So yes, apologies, that was just a, as it was the pack was coming together. An apology, I picked it up I just didn't refer to it as I was just doing the presentation there. No worries. In terms of your report Jackie, is that the end from your perspective? Not quite. Not quite. It is the end of what I've written in there. Unfortunately, I, when creating that report, I took an old report that I'd written and overwrote it with new information. And the one I overwrote it with was not the most recent one to be overwriting with, which meant I left off my report from the previous committee meeting, which I'd said that I would put in as a standing part of my report and forgot it for this report. So I'm afraid it's going to be a bit of a verbal update. The committee report, the committee meeting that was in July. There wasn't a huge amount to discuss. My report to them basically covered the performance update from LPPA and also we had a budget. The budget report went in so that was approved, the budget for LPPA was approved off. So that was the July 24 meeting, and we did have a committee meeting last week, which obviously you wouldn't have heard about anyway if we'd have been holding this a couple of weeks ago, as it's normally scheduled. Which, due to having to be rushed slightly, condensed into an hour due to other councillors having to move off to other meetings, it was mostly going through the finance side of it. And what I present, they basically read my report offline, as it were, so it didn't actually get much into the committee meeting at all. And the next committee meeting is after the next board meeting. So that then is the end of my report. Okay. Does anybody have any questions at all on that report from Jackie? No? And are we all content to agree to the recommend? Are we happy to agree with the recommendation to note the contents of the report? Yep. Okay. So we're going to move on to item eight now, which is a performance update, and that's going to be James. Hello. Can you hear me? Yep. So this report focuses on the performance of LPP quarter one of 2024, so April through to June. There's eight key points overall in the membership increase. I'm not sure, James, if anyone else is struggling, but it keeps cutting in and out for me. James, if you turn your video off, just turn your video off and speak and it might just be clearer. See if that helps. Is that alright? Hello? It sounds better. So I'll start again. So the reports for this is for quarter one of 2024, so April through to June. There's eight key points overall. The membership of the fund increased over the quarter. The SLA's stabilised and remained above SLA as averaged out over all case types. Seen a slight increase of point one percent from 98 to 98.1 from quarter four to quarter one. All cases were above the 95 percent target, which is good, except for estimates going into quarter one, they remain the same, although there was a slight increase to the estimate SLA. So I think I might have wrote that a little bit wrong. Number all overall completed cases decreased slightly by three from quarter four to quarter one. Only a small drop there. The help desk performance has massively increased as well, going up to 85.3. All calls being answered within four minutes, that's up from 68.2 in April. And that would have been due to the pensions increase award in April. Customer satisfaction levels have increased ending 89.7 percent in June, up from 82.4 in March. Another good thing. Number of members has increased by about 20 percent on the online portal. So that's gone from gone to 4,979 activated accounts, increase of 834 from March. The quality of our conditional data has remained steady. The latest monthly report at the time of writing a report was July 24, so it's for complaints, RDRP and breaches. There was eight complaints, three of them were for delays, one of them being a death case, the next one being deferred pension benefits and a retirement case. Five were for general service, and that was broken down over two being death cases, a transfer and then two were no reason given. That means the total of complaints for the year now up till July 24 goes up to 16. Our volume of complaints per thousand is one point eight. It's on a rolling 12 month basis, which is down from two point to seven percent on the previous update. It's still higher than one. Unfortunately, we had no IDRP cases reported. There was two breaches reported. One was an incorrect data protection check carried out and the other was just information sent to an incorrect address. And that is the end of the report. Thanks, James. I've got a question, not sure whether you've got the answer, but in terms of those breaches, how were they dealt with by the ICO? What were the outcome when they were actually logged? I don't have that information to hand. I'm not sure if Jackie or James have that information to hand. That is not information we have been given, actually. We don't know. We have asked for a little bit more information detail about things like that. But so far the LPPA haven't given them. So I will make a note to go back and ask about what results came out from, if anything needed to come out from the ICO with regards to those and what changes they might have made to procedures to try and prevent that said breach. And again, I will report back on it. I mean, obviously, sometimes depending on the severity of the breach, there's a penalty or a fine. But that would be the responsibility, obviously, of the LPP if the breach was made from themselves. Yeah, fine. Fine inside. It's kind of like if a case goes down through an ombudsman or a complaint case, just as a goodwill was funded from the LPPA. So if there is a breach that's related to LPPA's work, then that is managed by the LPPA. It's a fun kind of one. Just for clarity, just so Jackie, when she's getting information from LPP, can I just clarify, are you looking for LPP's process of complaint handling? Or are you kind of more of them specific cases getting further information on it, just so? No, it was just what the ICO determined as a result of those breaches. So, for example, has there been a has there been a penalty? Has there been a fine imposed? Because so what was the severity, the seriousness of the breach and how did ICO treat that? I guess was my question. No, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure if it was a more of a process kind of question in relation to how LPP deal with kind of when it goes through the escalation path rather than sort of the outcome side of it. So that's fine. I just wanted just clarity, just for Jackie's benefit. Were there any other questions for James? No. OK, so we'll move on now to item nine, which is the communications policy, and that's going to be Jackie again to update and present. Yes. OK, so can I just confirm, can people hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Jolly good, because I just realised I hadn't put my headphones in and everybody else and my husband was now being subjected to us talking away, so I wanted to stop him for that. OK, so one of the things we needed to get in place was a communication strategy to help arrange how much, what information we need to give out to employers on a regular basis, what things need to go out ad hoc. Just overall improve the way we actually talk to our employers and get a better conversation, a better level of communication with them. So we have written out a policy on how we are going to communicate with them and also come up with a timetable of what sort of topics we want to discuss with our employers or information they want to give them on a regular basis, what things we want to remind them of on a more regular basis. Promoting the online portal pension point so that our members can go on there and look at their details online, which means that they got quicker access to their information, to their pension details. And also with regards to communications with members as well on a similar sort of basis, what things do they need to know on a regular basis, what methods we're going to use to communicate with them. So the policy has been drawn up. We would like to implement it, well officially implement it from April so that it would be a three year policy to certainly be reviewed at the end of three years if not any amendments need to be made beforehand. We would, even though it would technically only come into effect from April, we would certainly be starting to implement methods and topics with employers much sooner than that. So we've got valuation coming up next year, so we want to get ahead of the curve with regards to reminding employers to clean up your data, get your query sorted. You've got to think about this valuation. If you do the work now, you could get a lower employer rate out of it, so it's worth doing the work now. So board are asked to look through the policy, give us any amendments, changes, suggestions that they might have with it so that we can then get it implemented. I think it's helpful obviously that there is a mix there between web and paper because I think as I've raised before from an employer's perspective for our staff, some of them don't have access to the internet, they wouldn't necessarily have a newer email and have access to the intranet. So we do send out communications via email, but as an example, we have a number of staff who we still print and send a paper payslip to, so I think that there is always going to be the need. It's far less than what it was before that we can have hard copies of information to give out and, for example, if we are recruiting when we bring people in and they are coming along for their induction, we like to give them a pack of information. So it would be great for us to have some of the things that you're talking about there, the scheme booklet that we can actually include and we can give to members because sometimes we're actually asked to advise and we always say if you want to opt out, that is not something that we can advise on. So I think having that clarity around what the pension scheme is, what the benefits are, it kind of helps with that decision making process, whereas at the moment we do have a lot of people who will actually ask us and that's what we will always say is that we're not able to advise you. So I think having that information is great from my perspective that we can actually give to staff and it helps them with their decision making and I'm sure it might be the same for Cathy and Christine for their members. I was just actually going to say that and also obviously back in the day you used to get a yearly, something yearly that used to come through the post that used to just give you the relevant information. That hasn't happened for such a long time now. Annual benefit statements have been put online and they've been online for a couple of years, only for a couple of years it has to be said, so that information about how to access your online statement is an important thing we need to put out to members, but also how to ask for a paper statement to be sent out as well. And obviously there is people that just are not very computer literate. No, absolutely no, I literally was chatting to a very nice lady earlier on today, but she was saying that yes, my question was do you have, can you work on the computer? No, otherwise we'll find a way around it, not a problem. Yeah, I don't know about Christine, but I get members that ask me the questions and obviously for GDPR reasons I can't, can you do it for me? Can you log on for me? And obviously for reasons I can't, I'm not able to do that. And is there someone I can speak to? Is there a telephone? You get bombarded with a thousand questions. I mean, I do have some Q&A's that was, I think James or you, someone sent them to me and I'll just print it off a load and I'll just hand them out now that's got relevant information and I'll just say, can you get a family member to help you? But obviously, yeah, something in black and white that we're able to give would be a lot better. Yeah, maybe like when we're sending out the information saying this is how you access your pension, this is how you access the information, maybe on there just saying if you request a paper copy of terms and conditions or how to go about it, then they can request a booklet. So you're not, I know like we're trying to save the trees and things like that and being greener, but if someone really does need it, then they can like contact that number and then get it sent out to them in the post or something. Yeah, yeah. And I think I'm not sure whether it features at all but just some feedback is that we have also had staff who are very unaware of what 50/50 is so sometimes we will have people that will say, you know, I'm going for a really difficult time, Philippa, we're going to have to opt out of the pension scheme and one of the first things we say to them is, are you aware of 50/50? And for a lot of them they're not. And I think that's another area that could just be thought about in terms of that communications because sometimes we've got members that don't want to opt out, but they're going through obviously, you know, personal financial difficulties and they feel that that's the only option and actually it's not. And when we talk to them about 50/50, very often then I see the forms come through and that's exactly what they've elected to do because they've had a conversation, and we've moved them into 50/50, but that is something, certainly you know within our workforce, it's not well understood. And I just think that that's another area because where people are leaving the scheme, this is a way of retaining and keeping them in but just, you know, recognising that they can't contribute to the fund fully at that moment in time. Make sure that that is one of the things we do try and shout about a bit more. OK. Were there any other questions on the communications policy? And Jackie, if anyone wants to send anything through, you know what that information for members looks like, I'm sure Kathy and Christine like myself would be happy to have a look and give you feedback if you'd like it when the time comes. You know, I'm happy for you to send me things and we can issue it out to our staff. I've said to James previously, you know, we've got headteachers, business managers, emails that I have a direct relationship with. So again, I'm happy if you want to share it as widely to schools as we can, if that's helpful for you as well. Yes, thank you. Yes. OK. So no other questions from Jackie and that actually brings us to item 10, which is the next meeting day, which is currently scheduled for the 26th of November. And just to make sure that everybody has got that noted and is available. I can see Kathy has got your mute. Hold on a minute. I'm back from annual leave, then I think that's why we changed it. 26, you said 26. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah, just checking. OK. So that concludes this evening's meeting. And thank you all very much. And all done in 56 minutes as well. Pip, how the job's yours? Have you stopped recording now, Christine? OK. All right. Well, unless anyone's got anything else, enjoy the rest of your evenings. Thank you. Thanks a lot, Philippa. Speak to you soon. Well done. Cheers.