Transcript

Okay, everyone. Good morning. It's 10 o'clock. So welcome to all the officers. There aren't any members of the public. A special welcome I want to give to Jeremy, whose city has now become the vice chairman of the board. So that's great. Thank you, Jeremy, for doing that. And slightly out of order, I want to welcome a guest. We have Councillor George Jabour, who is the chairman of the pension committee, pension fund committee in Warwickshire, and is chairman of the joint committee of board and the coast. George is here to listen to what we say. Maybe he wants to learn something, but he doesn't want to speak today. So you're very welcome, George, to be here. George, Yorkshire? I thought you were Warwickshire, George. George, I'm very sorry. In which case, scratch all that, Toby, from the minutes. Welcome to George, who's from North Yorkshire. George, who's from North Yorkshire. Okay. So in terms of the housekeeping, no fire drills are expected. So in the event of a fire alarm sighting, everyone present is asked to leave by the nearest exit and assemble the top car park, reporting to a member of the building management team. This meeting is being webcast live and it is open to the public, although I have the right to suspend filming if the need arises. Please ensure all mobile phones are switched off or turned to silent. I'm going to do precisely that just now. And please can board members and anyone presenting speak clearly and directly into their microphones. This is not only for the webcast, it's for the benefit of the chairman, who is quite deaf, and so you need to speak clearly and into the microphones. The order of the events that you have in front of you, the agenda is going to be taken in a slightly different order. We're going to take items 11 and 12, which are communications and training policy reviews immediately after item nine. So I move on to the item one, apologies for absence. We have apologies from Lisa, who can't be here today. She's apparently unwell. And we have apologies from Brendan Bradley, who gave them, I think, some days ago that he wouldn't be able to make it today. I think we've got Siobhan available. Yes, I can see her. I can see her mark up there. So Siobhan is here, but she's online. And I think that's all the apologies. Thank you. Great. So if I may, we can turn now please to item two minutes from the previous meeting. They're in the papers. They're on pages seven to 16. Do I have any comments on the minutes or may we take them as agreed? Looking at the board. Looking at the board. No, I'm taking silence as consent. Declarations of interest. Do we have any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest from members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting? Nope, none of those. I'm moving on. We've had no questions and petitions. So item four, that's none received. So we turn now to item five, which is on pages 17 to 42. This is a glossary, the actions tracker and the forward program of work. The glossary is a standard item. It's extremely useful to have all of these abbreviations explained. But really, I think we need to turn to the action tracker and forward program of work unless anyone's got any comments on the glossary. And they start on page 37. Really quite short now. So I'm just going to ask the board members if they have any comments on these or would like to say anything. William. It's a request rather than a comment, Chair. We received an email, I think it was from Adele, I can't remember, recently about make sure you've done all your training. Well, I like to think I keep up, but to be honest, I can't be certain that I have or I haven't. I just wonder if, I don't mind being named and shamed. I would quite like an email saying, you're up to date, don't worry, or you haven't done this. I would find that a bit helpful. Okay. Sorry, I can't come back on that, William. I just, the trustee toolkit is something that needs to be done for yourself, but I can get Jenny to send out the list for everybody. Yeah, that's fine. Thank you. Okay. But we do also have an item on the training policy later in the papers. I think Jennifer is here online, if need be. So we might pick up one of the bits and pieces of that sort then. Okay. Neil would like to say, Neil. Yeah, thank you, Chair. I just, to Adele's point, the trustee toolkit and the pensions regulator public sector toolkit are the two mandatory items advised to those members who haven't yet to complete it. I would urge, if you can compete, it would be much appreciated because it will form part of our submission to, as signatories for the stewardship code. So it would be much appreciated. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I just put a plug-in for the Hyman's materials in the training arrangements. I personally found them very helpful indeed. I think, you know, recap on a number of items I was a bit hazy on. It's got a brilliant summary of McLeod. So if you ever want to go there, look under the bonnet, as it were, I would really recommend that. Thank you, Nick. Thank you. Thank you, Nick. Yeah. This comes under Lola. Yeah. Which we've all got. And I think we all have access to all these materials. This is through SharePoint now. I'm looking at Adele. The Lola is an online platform, but we do have a link to it. I can get Jenny to send out the information to you just to make sure that everyone is aware of that. So, Chairman, just a quickie on that one. Of course, some of us couldn't get in at the last Highlands thing because they had trouble with their platform. Okay. I managed to get in sort of halfway through. There was a comment when I asked about it saying they're trying to put it right. Can we assume they have put it right? I doubt very much you can assume anything of the sort, but we'll ask them if they put it right. Let's see if they have put it. Let's make sure they do put it right so that we can all get in. I think we've got that noted, Toby. Yeah. Excellent. The only other thing that I wanted to pick up slightly on the action tracker is the A624, officers working to identify a suitable date and time for board meeting members to observe pension teams work at Dakota. Well, this has come up because Jeremy had been there and he spent time explaining to us how much benefit he'd got from spending a day at Dakota, seeing how the team worked and getting to know them better. all of which is entirely commendable and everyone should do that if they have the time to do it. But in discussions with Neil, I think we've concluded that it would not be appropriate to have one of these board meetings there. Do you want to add to that, Neil? Yeah. I mean, purely from the point of view of the accommodation, it really isn't set up for a public meeting. We don't really have the space or the ability to access for members of the public. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments on the action tracker recommendations? Any? The board? No. No. Okay. So, we move on then to item six, which is the Surrey Pension Funds… Sorry, I'm being warned that we should be… we need to make recommendations. I don't think we have any recommendations to make to the Pension Funds Committee. I don't think we have any. To monitor progress on the implementation of recommendations from previous meetings. Which I think we've done. And review and note any changes on the forward program of work. Are we happy to note that we… I'm being… I'm being upbraided because I have not read out the recommendations that we have to accept here. We need to note the content of the report, make any recommendations to the Pension Fund Committee if required. I don't think we have any. To monitor progress on the implementation of recommendations from previous meetings. Which I think we've done. And review and note any changes on the forward program of work. Are we happy to note that we… those recommendations? Yeah. Thank you, Toby. So, if I may then I'll move on to item six, the Surrey Pension Funds Committee summary update. Welcome, Nick. We have you here. This is a brief summary of what the Pension Fund Committee has been up to because it's up to a lot. I have read it. I have not identified any major issues in there. But Nick, Neil, whichever order you want to go in. Do you want to highlight any issues you think we should be more aware of than others? Yes. If I just highlight some things. Clearly, Unit 4 was… which has been a concern of this board was quite a lively discussion. We're going to look at that a bit later on, I think, on this meeting. So, I won't say any more. But just to remind the board that your chairman and myself, we do meet regularly with Neil and the team to monitor progress. And you'll hear more about that in this meeting today. So, we looked at, looking at paragraph five, we were looking at, you know, we really commended the progress that the operations team has made, you know, very good progress. And again, you know, that's a topic today. We, in paragraph 11, we noted there was to be a meeting on the 6th and 7th of January, or 6th and 7th of January, to discuss the response to the government on the local government, the reorganization of pension funds. We had, I think, a very good meeting. We also looked at the common submission that was in draft from the Border to Coast Committee. And, you know, we essentially did commit permitter report, which went through, and they were, you know, supportive of each other, as you would expect. So, in paragraph 13, we noted we're 142% funded. We noted in paragraph 14 concerns about one of the funds, Global Equity Alpha, and indeed, we did go on to look at that further in a part two session of the meeting. Paragraph 20 talks about a session we were going to have in February related to investment as part of getting ready for the actuarial valuation. In the end, we concluded we wouldn't go ahead with that because of the substantial changes happening with the pension scheme, and we thought it was better to see the response from government before we go down that line. But that is an important thing prior to the actuarial valuation, or finishing the actuarial valuation. So, paragraphs 23 and 24, we, at our meetings, we do have a, we take one of the asset classes and do a bit of a drains up, and we were looking at the private markets at our last meeting. And paragraph 29, we also, we look at what's happening at border to coast. And we did, we did endorse the investment beliefs which the border to coast committee, or border to coast board had brought forward, and we endorsed those and send our endorsement back to the border to coast itself. So, that's a quick run through. Happy to take any further answers. Thank you, Nick. I mean, there's loads of stuff in here. It's a nice, lovely summary. Neil, have you got anything you want to add to that before I throw it over to the board? I will just briefly add, so in the paper talks about, and thank you again to the board for your contribution in discussing the fund's response to the government's consultation fit for the future. You will recall that the pool are also required to make a submission back to government by the end of March, regarding the challenge of government to be ready and meet the government's pooling objectives. These are to be an FCA-regulated entity, to be the principal source of investment advice, to deliver expertise and capacity to implement investment strategies, to manage all assets, including those that are in legacy situations, and to deliver due diligence to manage local investments. Officers and members of the joint committee have been in discussions regarding this submission, and it will be out for shareholder approval. We will share this as soon as in the committee, and we will also take a paper to the committee in this next meeting in March. Sorry, to be clear then, this is going to go before the shareholders of Borders of the Coast for its approval, and then after that it will come to the board and the committee for noting? Yes. Yes. Okay, thank you. Board, any comments on the papers? Who's going to go first? Trevor, you go. Thank you. Nick mentioned the 142% funding, which is also referred to in the dashboard report, which is very healthy. But are there individual employers who have, for instance, a lot through the actuarial review? I think I'll look to Neil to answer that. I don't have the granularity of that at hand, but Colette may have some detail in front of her there. From my perspective, we expect across the cohort of employers for the experience to be broadly positive. Any employers under any particular pressure? No, I didn't know there might be some outliers, for example. Yeah, I mean, we're taking an evaluation paper to committee. There's certainly none of the larger employers are under any sort of financial pressures from the point of view of their funding level. So, without wishing to commit to it, I would say, in all likelihood, no. We're in a much more pleasurable... Yeah, I don't know whether... Nick? Just to add something, we do, of course, have some members or some providers, some members of the fund, who are withdrawing, you know, maybe contracts let by councils where they'd be members coming to an end. And so we do have a very safe investment strategy for those in that withdrawal or closing down stages. So that is helpful as well to protect the other members of the fund. Thank you. Did that answer your question, Trevor? I thought you were coming at it from a different point of view, but maybe not. No, it answered it subject to, I think, nil. I mean, subject to the evaluation, it's difficult to say, but the trend is positive across the whole of the employer cohort. So there are certainly no, I can tell you categorically, there are no worse experience than we were at the last evaluation. So I would not expect any increases in contributions across the piece. You weren't... I'll leave it if that answers your question. Yeah. Will you? I should know the answer to this, Chair, and I apologise in advance, but whenever I read the word innovation next to the word investment, I start exhibiting post-traumatic stress, having been a part of the clear-up of sub-prime in the past. And I just wonder, what was the innovation that we were shortlisted for? Was it product or was it administration? What actually was it? It was far more dull than that, I'm afraid. Not to give it the credit it's due, it was a piece of work from the investment team in managing our cash flow management. So it was an operational piece of work. And Mel Butler in the investment team was particularly responsible for that. Well done, thank you. Yeah. Do we have any further thoughts or comments on the report from the committee? No. If not, then we are requested as a board to note the content of the report and to make any recommendations to the pension fund committee if required. But I don't think we have any recommendations to the pension fund committee, so can we note the report? Thank you. So I move on now to item seven, which is the Surrey pension team overview, which is on page 49 of the papers. And it has a dashboard over there. This is overview. This is really a high level overview of the pension scheme as it runs. At the moment, Neil, I don't know whether you want to, it is really just a summary paper. Do you want to add anything to it or make any comments with regard to any of the items on the dashboard? Yeah. Thank you, Chair. So page 54 is the dashboard. And as I say, it is a snapshot. If members have any questions about specific areas on that, they are addressed in more granular fashion later on in this meeting. There's a couple of things I may just highlight. One is the continued, and Tom will elaborate on this, the continued performance of the administration team. And any of us who have been through the travails of administration over the last five or six years will read that with some comfort. The second is the update from the external audit. Colette, I don't know if you want to come in now and give a briefing on where we are with the external audit just for members benefit. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, I can do. The signing of the council's accounts, including the pension fund accounts, is planned for next week now, hopefully February the 26th. So the final pieces of external audit work for both the council and for the fund are being completed, well have been completed at the moment. And we're expecting the opinions to be released by the middle of next week and the signing to be next week. The signing has been delegated to the chair of the Audit and Governance Committee and our new section 151 officer. So, if I may, Colette, this delay doesn't cause us any, because they should have been signed before, it doesn't cause us any problems. No, it doesn't, and we're still, no, it doesn't, and we are still expecting an unqualified opinion on the pension fund accounts. And we have stressed that at every stage with EY when we've been engaging with them. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any other thoughts, Neil, or comments from the board with regard to the overview? Might I just throw out yet again the comment as far as the dashboard is concerned? Yes, we have a printed, or at least I have a printed version or on screen, we have a version of the dashboard as it is, but we can't dig into it in any way because we can't access the software behind it, unless we are members of Surrey County Council on the payroll. Has that been changed in any way or are we still in that position? Does anyone know? Sorry, it's Nicole here. Yeah. No, I'm afraid that is still the case that Surrey County Council only use Tableau, and you don't have to be on the payroll, but you do have to have a Surrey County Council email address. Yeah. If you have a Surrey SCC email address, then you can access it. But we do give a copy of it monthly now as well, and that's kept on the SharePoint site, I believe, and Neil highlights it once a month as well. Okay. I mean, almost by definition, a number of members of this board will not have an email address, a Surrey County Council email address. So we're just presented with the dashboard as it is, and we can't dig into it even if we wanted to. I know we do get pointers on this, but that is going to continue to be the case, isn't it, Nicole? Unfortunately, yes, because that's the Surrey, that's SCC's version, and I share your pain because it's not how I envisaged it to be either. But we did try another mechanism just to let you know. I asked for Power BI, which is also, if you like, the complementary software system for this type of sharing of information, but SCC doesn't support it. So we are a little bit stuck. Okay. Thank you for that. I'll try to stop raising it at every meeting, in which case if it's going to remain the same. Any other comments from the board on the Surrey Pension Team overview? Yeah, Chris. Thanks. It's a relatively minor one, but just one of the few measures that's below benchmark, and I know there's a longer sort of time lag with this particular measure than others, is the strategic enablers measure. I just wondered whether there's been any sort of further exploration of why that sort of dips, and it struck me as curious that in the six-month period following that survey, which I think is where that data comes from, the performance across the admin team has been really, really positive, and kind of whether there's any insights into the connection between that measure and performance, the investigation into that dip below the benchmark that I uncovered. So I can take that one, if you like. Yeah, please. Okay. So the strategic enablers are the ones on the strategic plan, and they are communications, culture and values, learning and development in people. And the way that those are measured, you're quite correct, is through the pulse survey results. So if you like, I see those as being the real acid test, because you can say all you want about strategy, and you can put all of the things that you would like to do in place. But actually, if people don't feel at the end of the day that it's made a difference, then actually it's not having the impact that you want. So those are measured through the pulse survey. And they're looking at all the aspects in relation to those items that I just raised. So even if service delivery performance had increased, that wouldn't necessarily mean that people were living the values in a different way, or that we had completed all the training, et cetera, et cetera. So they are related to overall performance, but not strictly in that sense that, you know, one will have a cause and effect on the other that is so direct in that way. So I am, we do what I can share, and it's probably a nice segue anyway, onto my report is that we now have had the results back from the December pulse survey. And I'm incredibly proud of where we have gone, got to with that. So we now have four data points of pulse survey results. And there are, in many cases, on questions such as, I feel proud to work at the Surrey Pension Team, and I'm happy in my role and all those sorts of questions, which are traditionally, in my experience, very difficult to shift, have seen over the course of the 18 months that we've been running these pulse surveys, a 20% increase, and I've never seen that in an organisation before. So whilst we are, but there's always room to go to get even better, right? And that's what we do, unpick the results and have a look at them and see where else we can do better. And although I'm not aware that there was actually a benchmark on the strategic enablers, but we had kind of set an arbitrary level because we didn't know what was the right target to aim for. Because it had been, this is all relatively new in real terms. But now that we have four data points and we can see what we normally get for those, we can either tighten or loosen the kind of levels that we put around them. So we can achieve that. We're about to move on to your change management update anyway. Yes. But just before we leave this one particular point of Chris's question. Yeah. If I look at what is actually published on the dashboard, it says the strategic enablers have gone down by 2.3% from to 68.3. It doesn't seem to me this is a particularly significant number. And it could have been just a couple of people have changed or whatever. So I'm not taking, whilst taking the question as being entirely relevant, I'm not sure that it matters. So just before we get on to your report, can we note the board of the content of this report? Sorry, Trevor. I'll come back. A couple of things. One a comment and the other a question. The comment relates to the KPIs, which is it's great to see them coming along in the way that they are, particularly for the last quarter. It's a very positive position to be in by comparison to where we have been at times in the past. And I think that's really good. I just had a question on, it's on paragraph six of the report, where it refers to unallocated receipts and what looks to be quite a significant sum of unallocated receipts going into quarter four. What is that and what's caused it? Because I become nervous when things are not allocated as they come in. I think that's it. I will take this one. Thank you. And yes, you're right, Trevor, to point that out, which is why specifically I wanted to include a paragraph in this report that highlighted that. So we have around just under 14 million sitting in the bank account at the moment that we need to allocate that relates to quarter three. And that then will bring that figure currently shown on the dashboard of 49 million back to what we're expecting it to be around the same figures that follow for all the other quarters. So they are this money sitting in that's coming from our employers that we've yet to. So once we've received it, which is great, we've yet to actually apportion it to ease to employees, employers and additional pension scheme contributions. Part of that is to do with a couple of reasons there, really. One, the number of receipts we've received has increased exponentially as our employers have increased. So we're getting more receipts every month. And the other reason is the issues with unit four and trying to get the contribution return that the employer sends in and the receipt and get everything into the ledger in a seamless way. So there is a bit of a backlog of those receipts at the moment. But we know that there's just under 14 million that relates to quarter three that we need to allocate. So those figures will come up again in the next quarter. And the unit four issues will come up again later in the report anyway when we get to item, I think it was item 10, probably still is item 10. Yes, it is. Is that okay, Trevor? I think it is noted very firmly that that is an issue. Yes. I would probably be talking about it too, I'm sure. We keep coming back to unit four as we have done for a while now and I recognise the difficulties. And we're going to come back to it again. But with only quarter four to go, all the income has to be allocated appropriately in order to be able to see A, what the position is and B, to do close down. Yeah. Well, I think we all agree with you. The team is very well aware of this, of the issues. Are there any other thoughts on this particular report? Otherwise, we're just being asked to note the content of the report. Okay, I think we can note the content of the report. Thank you all. We move on to item eight, which is on pages 61 to 66. This is the change management update. Nicole is with us as we've welcomed Nicole. Good morning. I'm looking up there and I can see Colette, not Nicole, but I'm sure she is here still. I am. Indeed. I think probably, I mean, there are a number of points mentioned here. Before you start, I just wanted to comment that in item 2B, the Surrey pension team were nominated for the Define Benefits Scheme of the Year Award of the 2025 Pension Age Award. The award ceremony will be held in early March. So all we can say is well done for being nominated and we're behind you. Let's hope you win when we come to that particular ceremony. So, shall I hand over to you, Nicole, and you will take us quickly through the various points here that you want to bring out? Yes. Thanks, Tim. And you completely stole my thunder because that was my first point that I was going to raise. But it's a really positive news story. So everybody needs to keep their fingers and toes crossed for March and hopefully we'll be reporting something at your next meeting on that one. Sorry to interrupt. Do we know what the date of this ceremony is? I don't. Beth is on the line, though, and she may be able to just check that and jump back in in just a minute if that's okay. But I'll carry on while she checks the actual date. So I know that you've got many chunky things to get through today. So I'm going to only pick out one or two points from the report that I would just like to highlight, because I'm sure that you have read it all through and we can take questions at the end if there are any other things that you wanted to raise. So my first point would have been about the DBS scheme of the year. My second one is that there is a series of videos. There's two now online in LinkedIn, which is really important for us in terms of signalling what a progressive organisation we are for those people that are in our kind of next layer of audience, if you like, and who, you know, never know, may one day be looking for us to recruit them. So there's myself, I was the guinea pig, I went first with these, and now we have another short update from Lloyd as well. And this is all part of the programme you'll see further video updates go. So they're only about two minutes long, so not a huge investment of time. And you can click on the link within the paper and it should take you, if technology works correctly, straight to it if you want to have a look. So can you, sorry Nicole, can you just expand for me at any rate, the videos exist. Are they compulsory viewing or do people just choose to view them? Is it for staff only or for anyone who wants to see it? No, they're public videos that are on LinkedIn. There's no compulsion to watch them, but they do kind of give you a sense of how we're communicating to the outside world. So they're a two-minute investment in time. So perhaps one day when you're making a cup of tea, yeah, just click on that link and have a little look. If you just go to the Surrey Pension Team site on LinkedIn, you'll see it. Yeah. Okay, thank you then. Sorry, Neil, I'm looking at you the other way. Yeah, just to add, Chair, it's part of our overall communication strategy. And they seek to increase the profile of the fund. And we've found that that's been really helpful when we look to recruit. It's an extremely competitive market. So we are looking for innovative ways in which to market the fund. Okay, thank you. So moving on to learning and development, I've already alluded to the fact that the fourth Staff Pulse survey closed in December of last year. Of course, the way that this is reported, although we have now analyzed the results, we are reporting from that period of October, November and December. So you will get the final results and further information at your next meeting. But I did give you a sneaky heads up that actually we are seeing really impressive performance there, which I'm deeply proud of, to be honest. To Chris's earlier point, yeah, I mean, it's only different by about 2%. So at the moment, we haven't really set very tough tolerances around anything because we've needed data in order to set those tolerances at the right sort of level. So although we wouldn't probably go tighter than 2% in that case, we are generically reviewing the dashboard as a leadership team over the next couple of months or so, with a view to just slightly tweaking it. As I say, looking at the tolerances on things so that it's clearer if things are going in the right direction or not. Moving to project management, I think the most critical element that I wanted to bring out there is the fact that we are revamping our project review board. So in combination with all my colleagues on the leadership team, we have surfaced all of the projects and all of the large operational items that are sucking a great deal of resource into one overall program view. And that is hugely important for visibility, so we all know what we are doing, for prioritizing so that we can make some clear decisions about what's taking priority, when and where, and to help us begin to capacity plan in a more focused way. So that's still in its infancy, we kicked off the first one, again, it's only been this year since we did that, and you'll hear more about it as we go on. But a hugely important step for us. Then looking at transformation, I'm delighted to say we finally have some vendors and we're engaging with them and we're very positive. And I think I should be able to report some interesting findings from those two vendors, one who's looking to help us scan the horizon as to digital innovation that is out in the world at the moment and their analysis of which of those things might be of interest in a pensions world and could be something that we capitalized on. And then there's a second vendor who's actually helping us with some very specific internal digital innovation. So one is around how we reconcile employer contributions, and the other is looking at how we digitize forms that customers fill in and liaising with Altair so that this can become a seamless experience that the data goes straight through in. So that one is definitely going to be more challenging, but again, delighted to be starting that. All of the tasks that I mentioned will continue over the next few months. So if you go ahead to see what the kind of the next levels of things that we will be getting into, what they say, those are the types of things we'll be continuing to do. And then finally, the only two points I was going to raise is that we could be looking at the communications and training policy, and thank you for moving those a little earlier so that we can move straight on to those. There was, I think, I think it was William who mentioned, sorry, who were very small on my screen. I think it was William that was talking about access, but I think you were talking about a recent webinar, not access to Lola. I know Jenny, my colleague, also tried to access that same webinar and also had difficulties, but that is separate and different to Lola. We're not aware that we've experienced difficulties getting on to Lola previously, but if you have, do reach out, and we'll obviously try and resolve that for you. But in terms of the change management update, that was what I was planning to highlight to you. Brilliant. Thank you very much, Nicole. There have been huge steps made, haven't they, in the time that this has been going on? I think over a period now of 18 months, would you say? My time goes past. Two years. Yeah. Two years now. It's a tremendous performance. And we notice all the, at least I note, all the next steps. You say D, the revised project review board, will be launched. Did you have a date for that? Or is it sort of launched by virtue of the fact that it is? It's already launched. It's already launched because I'm, of course, reporting October to December. So, yes, we've had the first one and we've had a mini second one, which we did to get some information so that we were properly set up to run the next one. So, yes, it's going very well. Very pleased. Thank you. I will throw it open to the board for comments. Any further comments or thoughts? Trevor. Thanks, Tim. Thanks for that. Just on the governance aspect, which is number seven in the list, we've got, it's very early days yet, but we've got local government reorganisation on the horizon. And that obviously needs to feed into this as time goes on. But there's already an agreement between the districts and the counties, I understand it, that one authority is not going to be the solution. It's going to be likely two or three. So, that being the case, you'd normally then expect there to be a lead authority for, for example, certain functions, including the pension fund. And is that scenario being built into the review of governance arrangements? Well, I'll defer to Neil on that one, but yes is the answer. Yeah, thank you. Thank you for raising that, Trevor. Yes, certainly we are doing some work at the moment. We're doing some discovery work around that. We'll be taking a paper to the committee in its meeting in March. There are a number of different variables. We could be talking about different solutions. One thing is for certain, yes, we will be needing to become part of the different administration authority, and there are a number of issues and risks that surround that. The paper that we take to the committee in March will also be inviting further workshops with members of the committee and board as we work through the different options. It will be part of the second stage business plan that we submit in May. I mean, it's pretty obvious, isn't it, Trevor, that there's a lot of work to do to build all this into who are we going to be, you know, who is the administering authority? But I'm not going to say any more because there's so much work to be done on it. William. Thank you, Chair. I've also got a comment on item seven, and it's that of the two ambitions there, the autonomy one strikes me as by far the most important one. And what I'm interested in is the kind of framework that might be the basis of a new relationship or understanding between, if, for example, it's something akin to a memorandum of understanding, for example, that can be undone by subsequent people having a different view. And bearing in mind that the government shows an increasing desire to interfere, if I can put that emotionally, into the business of pension funds, I just wonder whether the autonomy that we talk about is something that actually requires some kind of statutory protection. Now, nobody talks statutory without a shudder, but other pension funds may be facing the same kind of issue. And I just wonder what is the levers that can be pulled in order to protect the autonomy that we're concerned about? Because if it's an MOU kind of a framework, I think that's quite weak, to be quite honest. If it's council standing orders, they can be changed as well. It needs something which is robust. And I just wonder whether that thought has been included in the thinking that's been going on so far, and whether we're the only people facing this kind of issue to deal with. Well, I think I can answer the last one. No, we're not the only people facing it. I think everybody is. But I'll pass over to Neil, who's probably got about 20 years' worth of time to speak on this particular topic. A short answer, yes. So, you're absolutely right. I would just comment, Chairman, on that, if I may, that if at the end of that exercise, you really feel that that kind of resilience is difficult to achieve within the existing frameworks. And other pension fund conglomerations felt the same way, and that you needed something more, then you've got a case to take to government, a much stronger case than if it's just us. So, I would just leave that thought with you, because at the end of the day, this might not be just the best we can achieve. The best we can achieve might not be good enough. I would imagine, I'm not, I imagine is the wrong word, I'd be pretty confident that this is a common event throughout the LGPS that everybody's facing, especially those who are changing structures, but everyone anyway is facing this particular issue. So, it must be taken up, I assume, by the local government association, the LGA dealing with this. I mean, I think what William is looking for is some sort of reassurance that there's a big push on this to make sure that we retain our independence and autonomy. I mean, Nick is going to college as well. Thank you, Chair. Well, the benefit structure of the LGPS is not changing. Clearly, the government can do that, but it would change the whole scheme in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. So, the benefit is not changing. The government is consulting on greater powers and responsibilities to the pool. We've, I mean, I've certainly said before, I think we're part of the best pool. We already have much of what the government is looking for in terms of, you know, regulated entity, internal funds management, et cetera, to that pool. So, we're in a very strong position there. And the consultation has really focused on the investment side and how that might, you know, produce better returns or less risky returns. So, that's on the asset side. On the liability side, they are clear about the obligations remaining with the administering authorities, you know, all the employers. So, while there might be changes and there will be changes of the administering authority, I mean, that's happened before. It happened in Cumbria a year ago or so when Cumbria was split apart. So, there are ways of operating. There are substantial issues in many aspects of local government, you know, provision of social care, special educational need, et cetera, et cetera. This is one strand. So, I don't expect any change in the scheme or in one or the liability within an administering authority. I hope that's given some assurance. Thank you, Nick. Does that give you any reassurance, will you? Partly, but I think I probably didn't help by mentioning the government. But this item, as I read it, is about relations with Surrey County Council. I mentioned the government merely as sort of shadows on the horizon. But this is about our relationships with the County Council, whether it's the current one or some future arrangement of local government in Surrey. And that's what I was interested in, particularly. Are we autonomous against that background? I'll take Nick's points completely. I don't quarrel with any of them. Just to the specifics of that, yes. Sorry, can you speak up a bit? Just to the specifics of that. Yes, we have identified and had support from this board and the committee and senior officers in the organization regarding the ring-fencing of Surrey Pension Fund in its operational bent. And we continue to work on that. One of the papers in the agenda is on conflict of interest. We're also doing some – we'll be starting to work on understanding the touch points in transactional activities between the Council and the Pension Fund. From our perspective, that probably goes as far, if not further, to your point about the LGA, Chair, regarding the good governance recommendations from the Scheme Advisory Board. So I think we are well positioned. Are there statutory legislative recognition of the different relationships? Well, probably not, but that's not uncommon for a number of different Council, as Nick highlights, a number of different Council operations. We're reliant on – what we have done is we've created a role of LGPS senior officer. That is something that was highlighted in the government's recommendations some years ago. That is an officer dedicated to work on the pension fund and we also – in support of the Section 151 officer. So from that point, I hope it gives you some comfort. Yes, I don't know what the new shape of Surrey will be, but one would hope that we would be able to build on the governance improvements that we've already put in place. I mean, I see it that because of the changes in the administrative authority structures, but I know more than that, because of the changes in the councils themselves, it is an opportunity for the pension fund to, as it were, restate its case as being a separate, completely separate entity and therefore to achieve greater autonomy rather than less because of the changes. But I could be just a ridiculously youthful optimist, you don't know. Chair, sorry, last point. I totally agree with you and I was just really probing to see whether that ambition was the one that we were actually using in guiding what we're doing. That is my view. Whether it's our ambition, I'll pass over to Neil. I don't really want to commit to officers' ambitions. It's a, we are part of a committee structure and the trustees of the committee are the makers. So, in fact, we are on item eight, the change management update. So, we do need, unless there are further comments on this, interesting discussion, to note the contents of this report. I think we've noted them pretty firmly, actually. We'll see what's in here. Thank you, Nicole, for that. I'm now going to move us, if I may, to items 11, which is on page, which is on page 113. And this is the communications policy review. It's a short report, but it does contain the communication policy statement. I'm going to ask Nicole if she wants to just talk us through briefly what this is about. I don't think, well, then we actually have the statement itself for comments and then to make any recommendations about. So, over to you, Nicole. Thank you, and thanks to my colleague, Beth, who leads our communications area. She's also online with us as well. If I'm honest, I think this should be a relatively quick item. There is nothing substantively different in this communication policy from the last time it was reviewed, which is if it's reviewed on an annual basis. There have been slight tweaks on layout and so forth just to make it slightly more readable. But other than that, I appreciate there are some new members of the board, but by and large it should be exactly the same as what you've seen before in terms of content. There's nothing particularly new here. So, I would suggest we're just open to any comments or any points of clarification, and Beth can take those for you because she knows the detail line by line. But hopefully that's a fairly simple one. Thank you, Nicole. With that, I'll throw it open to the board for any comments on it. Personally, I have to say, fine, I accept it. That's what it is. It's a statement, so I have no other comments. But, board, has anybody got any views on this or comments? It's reviewed on an annual basis, and we have asked to note it and recommend its approval to the Pension Funds Committee. I'm getting a dead silence here, so I think, can we do that then, note the contents? Yes, and recommend its approval to the Pension Funds Committee. Yes, thank you very much. So, last one, I think, for Unicom. We're now going to move on to the training policy review, which starts on page 135 of the papers. We've talked about this a little bit already today, how important the training is and the degree to which we need to make certain we're up to speed with it all and the ways in which we can find things that we need. This is a review of the training policy. There's quite a lot of it in Annex 1. But, again, I'm going to pass over to you, Nicole, if there's anything you particularly want to bring out here that we haven't already discussed and see where we go from there. Thank you. Similarly to the communication policy, this is a policy which is reviewed annually. The changes that have been made, again, there are the ones that have been made to make it more readable. We felt that the flow could be improved and it does look a little bit different to last time, but it's largely the flow has been changed just to make it make more sense. It didn't read that well to me. It had been a policy that I picked up when I arrived, but we believe we have improved it. We also have taken advice and looked at other pension funds and the way that they would, their communication, their training policy rather, and so we took some advice from them and have improved the flow based on their suggestions as well. Probably the only point that is the biggest point to mention is the fact that we have now put some sanctions in place for those who do not complete their training. We have up-weighted this element of the policy because as part of all of the changes that are happening, it is going to become more necessary to raise the importance of training with people. The sanctions aren't overly onerous, in my view. You get plenty of warning shots across the bow before anything by and large happens, but it does nevertheless raise the importance of completing training. Last year, we did actually substantially reduce the amount of training that we made mandatory, so we really only are into kind of two areas, which are the various toolkits that you can do. It is, of course, important to note that it's not between the board and committee. There are different levels of governance in terms of what should be compulsory. However, we take the view across the Surrey pension team that, in a way, if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. So if it's compulsory for the board, then it should also be compulsory for the committee and vice versa, if that makes sense. I have my colleague, Jenny, on the line as well, who knows this policy inside out. So I suggest, at this point, if we're just open to any questions about the policy, as I say, the only real difference from last year is the addition of sanctions if training is not completed. The substantial reduction in mandatory training was made last year, so it shouldn't be a surprise. In which case, can I start before I throw it to the board? I'm looking at page 141, where it says new members' induction training. On appointment to the committee or board, all new members will receive a member induction handbook. I've personally never seen such a thing, and I'm looking at the board to ask them if they've ever had one. I'm getting a lot of head shaking, so that's kind of number one. We all need to get hold of this members' induction handbook. Then it goes on access to Lola, which we know about, and the Surrey Pension Governance SharePoint site. Well, I've managed to learn these things from the point of view of reading these papers before everyone else has, and I want to make certain that everyone can do this, because I couldn't. I can now, but I'm not sure that everyone can. So I think that's pretty important to make sure that we do have this access to all of these things. And I think I'm also picking up on the point that William made, is that I think we're happy, and maybe that's not the right word, but happy we'll do, to be told that we're being named and shamed because we haven't done something. We do need to know whether we're up to speed or not, and we take the point as to how important it is. So I'll make those comments, and then I'm going to pass over to the board. Just a very quick one. I'm conscious that I think I'm a newer member of the board than most of the other people here, but I have got the handbook. You have? Yeah. Good. Hooray. Sorry, Chair. It's the old members. And we're very happy to circulate in a couple of years since we've introduced this scheme, and so we're happy to circulate with any members that haven't received that since it's been introduced. I suspect it's because, you know, we're all a bit long in the tooth, some of us on this board, and we've been around a long time. It probably wasn't available when we started out, but I suspect that's what it's about. Perhaps we should just call it a handbook rather than induction handbook. Right. Sorry, where were we? So any other comments from the board or any further thoughts on this? And with the imaginary training, it's important. I mean, having said there's nothing much changed, there's a great deal of detail in here which is important, so thank you for it. Jeremy? Well, I have a little bit of a concern about the written warnings and all that. This is important. Well, I don't know how to react to that, but I think we can note the point. I totally take a point, and we can certainly look at the language. The escalation from the point of view of knowledge and understanding that has the spirit behind it is to protect members of this board who have a... So I'm looking at the board for any further comments. If not, I think we're requested to note the policy. Well, I think we've done that. I recommend its approval to the pension funds committee. I think we can do that, and it's reviewed on an annual basis, which is fine. So can we do that, board, and move on? So in a sense, now we've stopped talking about ourselves. Perhaps we can move back to the items 10 and 11, or item 10 to... No, sorry, item 9 to start with, which is the service delivery overview. Pages 61 to 84, if you drop back through your papers. 61 to 84, that's what it says. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. 61 to 84, we're here. This is essentially the report... It's not 61. Sorry, it's not 61. It's 67 to 84. Sorry, but pages 67 to 84. Tom is here with us. Welcome, Tom, as ever. This is, if you like, the guts of the administration report of the things that are going on. Do you want to take us through it, please, Tom? Because there's quite a lot in here. And if you could refer to the paragraph numbers so we know which bits you're talking about. Yeah, no worries at all. Yeah, so starting on, so page 68, looking at the service delivery performance levels. So I'm pleased to say that the overall performance for our standards is a 97%, an average of 97%, which is up 5% from last quarter. And you'll see from Annex 1 that the all case work has exceeded its target level. And in some cases, it's reached 100%. And that's noticeable in the ill health retirements and much of the transfer work this quarter. And there are others that are in around 99% as well, such as death notifications and refunds. So I'm really pleased to see that from the team. And it's the fact that it's consistently happening now. We're sort of five months in where all targets are being achieved or exceeded. Now, obviously, some board papers ago, you might remember, we've made some changes to the team to the way in which we were able to increase the level of resilience and improve the level of development across the team so they had more understanding of different case areas. So that's now sort of really bearing fruit. But there's also some introduction of some new processes where the team have implemented some working with our software providers and new processes in around that we now have an online retirements option, which is now a self-serve option for our members, which is then effectively removing the need for the quote stage to be done in a more manual way. It's done live on that person's record. So in the time that I reported this, we had 60 quotes come through that process and 16 sort of going into payment. The total since we launched it is now at 221 come through quote and 119 have gone into payment. So it's now starting to increase the numbers of people using that. And we are now increasing the communications around that through employer newsletters. And there will also be an online video going out that supports any members who want to use that way. Now where that's having a really positive impact from the back office side and efficiencies is that's brought the average processing time of that retirement stage for those cases from 9.5 days to two days. So we're now making headway into other areas and being able to keep up with all the work that's coming through. So what we really want to do there is look at how we reposition that time and making sure that we're making the most of that and finding efficiencies elsewhere and improvements for our members. And that will continue to do so. So, you know, and we will continue to look at and explore other areas where we can make more automation and online services working alongside our software provider. Fantastic. So if there's anyone want to ask any questions on that before I move to the next point for you. Trevor. Yeah, it sounds really good. Where does the employer fit into the online retirement process? So the employer is, well, so obviously the monthly returns, from an active perspective, it's those monthly returns. The quicker that we get that information, that member's record is up to date. And if that person then chooses to leave, we will receive that notification through the I-Connect module, which is a monthly return. So the employer, as long as they're fulfilling their duties there and supplying that information on time, it speeds up the process and the usability of the online service. When a member's deferred and they are not within employment, but they have a pension there to be taken, it's much easier because it's static. So a lot more of those cases are deferreds. It's deferred members taking their benefit. But what we want to do is close that gap with employers to improve the speed that that data comes through so that we can allow more people from going into active retirement. So the employer's role hasn't really changed from that perspective. It's always been about the speed and the quality of data coming in. It's just a question, Chairman. Page 81, the terminated cases overview. I'm not sure I actually understand what is the difference between a case which has been closed and a case which has been completed. I understand what a completed one is, but what's the difference with a closed case? Is it outstanding but not finished or has everybody agreed to do nothing more about it? What is it? What's the difference between those two meetings? So a closed case or when we call a terminated case, that would be where likelihood is that something has been set up in the workflow of our administration system incorrectly. So it could be that it was already partway through the retirement, but we received a piece of information that someone set up the initial retirement. So they have to be closed and then reset up on the right workflow. So sometimes it's just the incorrect allocation. So what we're looking, what we want to do, and I guess it's one of the targets as a team, is to reduce the number of times that those cases are set up incorrectly and having to be closed and reset up. So it's often at the initial point at which information is received. So they're not left in minimum? No, no, no, absolutely not, no. It is, yeah. It's more of a housekeeping exercise really to make sure it's picking up what's already in train, but what we need to do is try and reduce those and that will be a target of that particular team going forward, which is around us increasing their knowledge and their training. If I remember correctly on this, and there was a time going back a few years, and I mean Nick may well remember this too, there were loads and loads of these cases hanging around that seemed to be open cases, but were actually nothing was happening for whatever reason, mainly because they'd been moved into another case, but nobody'd closed off the old one. And I think there's a lot of that. But I think, am I right, Tom, that's what we're clearing up? No, that's correct, yeah. Well, some of those cases formed part of the legacy work where it looked like there was still an open case to be processed, but actually it had already been done, but something had been left open indicating it hadn't been. So again, and we've improved the sort of processes and the guidance and the checklists for the team, so we're having less of these remaining open. So these particular ones are just where they're coming through, set up on the wrong workflow, and then closed off and reallocated. Joe, I'll give you just one other similar point, just about understanding. Somewhere, I can't find it now, somewhere it says we had 10,000 inquiries, and underneath it, it says we had 400 interactions. What's the difference between an interaction and an inquiry? Nothing, probably, actually, in all honesty. So I probably just need to make sure that the terminology is the same. So I think you're referring to our customer relationship team. So yeah, they've had 10,500 inquiries, which is emails and calls and et cetera, but there was 400, I think it was 400 less this month than the previous month. So I'll just make sure that I have the same consistent language so we can go next time, yeah. The point that I've made with regard to this thing with the 10,500 cases, it's a very stable number. We seem to get about the same 10,500 cases every quarter, and I couldn't work out whether that's because that's how many there are or whether it's because that's the number of people we've got that can deal with them. They can't take any more than that, so it couldn't go up. But it might go, I don't know. But I think the answer is it probably is just about rights. That's what they handle. Yeah, I mean, there isn't anything indicating any difference, but what I would say an ambition from us into the next financial year and our next strategic sort of business plan year is we'd like to reduce those each quarter anyway, and by doing that, that means we're improving the information that's out there for our employers and members. So our ambition is to try and reduce those in the next coming year. But it has been, and nonetheless, it has been pretty stable for quarter after quarter. Sorry, Tom, I'll be back to you. Yes, please. No, no, sorry. No, it's fine. Okay, so I mean, I just want to... Hang on, Nick, sorry. Sorry, I had a number of questions. I can ask them now or leave till after Tom's spoken. Well, look, just as... I've got a few... I'll walk through the whole paper, and then if they come up... Okay, so just picking up on page 68 as well, I just wanted to sort of highlight on the complaints. So obviously, whilst the numbers are relatively low again this quarter, as are with sort of the IDRPs and the ombudsman cases, I just wanted to highlight, I suppose, even though those numbers are low, we are sort of continuously looking at how we can minimise these even further, and we do want to learn from these sort of cases and these complaints so that we can minimise that and mitigate that in the future. So we are sort of now looking at how we can carry out some increased lessons learned on some of these areas just so that we can make those improvements and, you know, prevent any difficulties for our members. So really, it was just to note that more than anything, but again, whilst the numbers look low, I would like to sort of see them at zero. That's the ultimate goal we're looking for. I think, I mean, my observation on these, Tom, was that there was no particular connection from one to another. There was no theme going through them. They were just random cases. No theme, but I think when we look at some of those, it's probably, it could be based around communications and various things like that, which, again, ties into what we want to try and do and improve that side of it. But yes, absolutely, yeah. Okay, so picking up on page 70, just want to give a quick update on some of those sort of major project works that are going on. So the GMP, which has obviously been around for some time, this week we were due to receive the final calculation data for pensions from Mercers who are carrying out that work as a third-party provider. I can confirm we did receive the information, the necessary data. I would say, unfortunately, there are still some questions around the quality of that that we are exploring with them. Now, we're on an extremely tight timeframe on this particular work because we are looking to tie this off this side of the pensions increase. But ultimately, what we want to do is make sure that if there are going to be any changes to members' benefits they're receiving, we give them a significant amount of time to be prepared for that. Before you leave it, Tom, the paragraph 24 refers to the financial impact being sorted out or known in February 2025. Well, we've got a week to go. Well, again, and I think that all ties in on the information we're receiving. And I think because we're now querying some of that information, it would be sort of slightly dangerous of me to give a figure here today that might change again next time. So it's just – it's a huge amount of danger. It's very complex, but it's just we're having difficulties in terms of quantifying that with the supplier. So I'm not saying we won't get it done in time and we won't meet the deadline, but what I would probably like to give assurance is if we are still unconvinced, what we won't do is do anything that will put our members who are receiving their pension at a disadvantage without giving them a significant amount of time to prepare for any changes that they might experience. So I'd rather be cautious on that one than go ahead without having the level of assurance from our side. Good. Similarly, sort of – it's still on page 70, but moves into page 71 with McLeod. So, again, you know, this work is progressing. Again, it's extremely complex. There's a huge amount of data and there's lots of configuration to be done in the system. The team have done brilliant so far. There's a combination of different members of services and officers from different teams working on this. There has been a lot of testing, a lot of developments going on. There has been, you know, real useful exercise in terms of flushing out any of the possible issues that might go when we move it into the live system and it becomes day-to-day operations. So that has been really good. And we haven't been able to provide an update report yet to determine the exact number of cases that will require rectification. So I have left the table in there that was as of November 24 that gives you the sort of – I think – number 29, paragraph 29. It does indicate that we've got approximately 2,000 records at this moment that will require some sort of review and some sort of rectification work to be carried out. Now, you'll see that there's sort of two columns there. You've got the provisional underpin and the final underpin. So I've made a reference to that the provision underpins calculated at the point the member's final salary benefits will have applied and the final underpin is at the point the benefits came into payment. So it's a two-stage process that you have to run the reports on and the system will do that. Both will require some sort of investigation. So we're – at this moment in time, we're approximating about 2,000 cases that will require remedial work right now. So we will make sure that we obviously resource ourselves efficiently for that within the resources that we've brought in actually to cover these major projects and legacy work. Okay. So if I just move on. So I'll pick up now on page 72 just on the legacy casework there. So obviously we are – we've got to a stage where I've just mentioned 96, but it's actually now 97%. So we've hit a point where I would say we're almost at a point of completion of reducing the backlog of cases. So can you say that again? Almost at a stage where – Well, we're at the point of where we've completed the legacy cases. You know, we're now down to the final few. And I think we're – it's these cases that are in a place where we're still requiring information from employers. So we've – obviously we've still retained – we've still retained those staff and we've retained those staff obviously because now what they're working on is the cases that have fallen out of Unit 4 now that we've run those retrospective reports. So we will continue to work on those cases, but it will just be under the guise of the continued work around the legacy for Surrey County Council. So we have identified for what we call – I don't want to say legacy 2, but obviously internally that's what we're calling it as such – is that there's 2,100 cases that have now fallen out from the retrospective running of the last 10, 11 months of iConnect files, the monthly leaver returns, and the final pay information for the extracts. The positive thing is the team are about halfway through those already. So they've done that in the space of, say, a couple of months. And I'd like to think on the way things are going, we could still sort of get that towards the end of March. A lot of that work will be cleared down already, which will allow the team to focus on the GMP and McLeod rectification only. So, again, real positive piece of work, but obviously it's just making sure we've got the right level of resource to manage that and deliver all of those works side by side. Remaining on page 72, and I say I'll just do a quick – and I won't go into too much depth on these ones – but I think it's just worth noting that we carried out the procurement exercise for our pensions administration system. So this was carried out in the late summer into the autumn. We used – worked with the Orbis procurement team. We utilized the LGPS framework that's there for the administration software that has three approved suppliers who have already signed up for the bulk of understanding what they need to do to qualify to provide that system. We had two responses, and after a robust moderation process, we have taken – our contract has been offered to Hayward Pensions Technologies, who are our incumbent supplier, and we are now in the process of just finalizing those contract terms, and that will be for initial another five-year period. And then finally, I think it's just to highlight on the last page from the report on page 70 – I think 73 online, I think it says, and that's paragraph 44 under benchmarking. So we – for the second year running, we've used CEM benchmarking to carry out some – well, the carrying out the benchmarking exercise to look at some of those service provisions we offer, and it's predominantly through a customer-centric lens rather than looking at key performance measures. And I'm having sort of – you used them now, it's the second year on – it's been – we are in the mix with a peer group of other LGPS funds or similar schemes, and it has provided some useful insight for us to look at areas that we can improve, where we're doing things well. So, you know, it showed that we invest well in our contact centre functions, and that's reflected in the high rating we received. It did provide some insight into our administration costs. So although it looks like we're slightly higher than the average, equally on the other side of that, our project costs are lower. So it's sometimes the way in which you report the information to the benchmarking funds might cut that information slightly different. So roughly we're going to end around the right place on that. And there was a natural increase in our score, and a lot of that in our sort of – the matrix that he used to score the funds on that. We had an increase of six points on that, and a lot of that was around the customer engagement work we were doing, where we were actually speaking to our employers and our members to truly understand what they do. So that's something we want to keep building on in the future so that we can make some – you know, when we make changes, it's meaningful. I think that's probably something – yeah. Just on that one, it's perhaps worth saying that the CISEM benchmarking review, I think, runs to about 120 pages. There's an awful lot of it. But it is available on – where is it available? On SharePoint? It's not at the moment. It's not at the moment, but it's something – if there is an appetite to see that, it's something we can share with yourselves. Absolutely, we could put that on the SharePoint, yeah. Would the board like to see it, the full thing? Yeah. I think it's good to make it available. Absolutely, yeah. And my second – I will come back to you, Nick – is the – the paragraphs you haven't mentioned, or pages – paragraphs 50, 51, and 52, which is the admin strategy review, which is to clarify scheme employers' responsibilities and set out the standards, et cetera. So, I think that's going to be quite a useful exercise, isn't it? Apparently, we now have upwards or even more than 500 employers in the scheme, which is a tremendous number. So, we should look forward to seeing that when it comes out at the end of – well, you say it's at the end of the first quarter. Yes, that's the aim, yes. So, we have the admin strategy already there, but I think it needs that review to it to make sure it's still fixed for purpose with the changes that we've made. But, yes, that's the aim to bring it to – Nick, I'm going to come back to you now. Sorry. Thank you. It's better you did at the end. Thank you. Firstly, Tom, this is a fabulous performance, and, you know, those of us like Trevor go back a long way. This is first rate, absolutely first rate. Can't say that too many times. Online retirements, what percentage are we getting up to in terms of these retirements? Well, we've only just got the report now in our Altair Insights to do that, so I don't have that to hand, but it is something we are now in a position where we can start supplying a little bit more information on that. That would be good. And on the backlog, great to get to 96%, two questions about that. The 2,100 mentioned to the county council itself, is that part of this 4%? Or is it some new backlog? It's new. It's separate to the remaining, yeah. Yeah, I thought it might be. So are there other backlogs with other employers or – There isn't – not specifically, although there has been one employer on – when we've been rolling out the iConnect, which is the monthly return module, there was one employer – sorry, a payroll provider for a number of employers who was having difficulties doing the submissions, which we're having to manage with them. There are about 300 cases in those as well. So in the same way that we would treat the county, we would treat them the same in whatever way that we do that or look for any reimbursement of such, yeah. Yeah. Just a couple of final questions. When we're doing the clearing out the backlog, given we know there are some issues still with some of the Unit 4 data, so when we do a clear-out, do we look at the most recent data and take into account any Unit 4 issues? We do. So we have natural checks that we would – so when we receive the information through any means, we have validation checks we do, and some of those might be looking at the previous year's information to see that if there's not a drastic difference in what we've received. So if it suddenly went down or it suddenly shot up too high, there are checks that are built into that information when it's coming through an automated process. I would then say when the team are processing cases in general, they would also look to see if, you know, if there are missing data gaps, they will then request that information before they process that. Where we've had that – we introduced our pensioner payroll team, which were carrying out some of those employer functions on behalf of the county, which, you know, the county council are effectively going to pay for. We have – those questions now go through to that team who are internal to us but working on behalf of the county, and it's sped up the process for that information to be – so they have access to the Unit 4 system as well. So they're a kind of a unique team at the moment. But we do take into consideration – but in general, if there's nothing glaringly wrong, we will take the information that's being supplied by the employer because that is the route that we should take. But obviously, we're fully aware that with Unit 4, that may not always be the case. And I would say, Nick, those particular cases, those 2,100, all of those are highlighted as having an issue on those records, hence why we have singled them out to deal with them differently because we know we're missing information on them. Yeah. And, Gemma, my final question. McLeod, I'm encouraged by the fact there are – the numbers falling in. You've got a table in the report. It is quite low. I mean, it's a couple of thousand. So that, in my mind, is quite encouraging that it's not going to upset the apple cart. Could you comment on that? Yeah, so those numbers are – so those numbers are based on the information that was – that went through the system that didn't come out with a discrepancy where it might say it's missing some information that needs to be completed before it can work that out. So there are going to be other cases, but they are going to flow their way through business as usual and because what we won't be able to do is – they're not – the discrepancies aren't big enough to – for us to work to investigate right now, but they may – but once that data starts to come in from the – from the employers at a later date when the member might take their benefit, it might be that they do qualify McLeod for McLeod or the underpin. But that will get – that will be picked up as part of the system doing its work as part of day-to-day. So there could well be others that come down further down the road, but from the initial information and the reports we've run, that's what it's identifying that needs looking at immediately. But that's not to say there won't be more coming through. It just – it will become day-to-day work. Thank you. Yes. Yeah, I'm sorry. I was pondering that. I mean, almost by definition, business as usual is going to produce more – as they come to retirement, you will do a final check, won't you, as to whether there's an underpin to apply. That's right, yeah. But the cost of that, if there were one, would just fall into the normal actuarial review. Correct, that's right, yeah. So they – once they're – some of these would just be identified as a matter of course, but there's nothing that's identifying them now. And they say – we're talking of hundreds of thousands of lines of data that was being reviewed. I suppose what you're always going to have is there may always be some discrepancies in that data that might affect it later on if more information was to come in. So it's just one of those things where you've got to take a pragmatic look and go, well, based on everything that we've got now and the tools that we have available, this is what it's identifying that needs like some sort of remedial work now, which is what we all can make sure we carry out over the sort of the summertime. Okay, then, Board, we've got the four appendices, which I think everyone – sorry, Trevor. Thanks, Tim. Just a concern about the timescale for communication of the GMP effect on those members of the funds who are adversely affected. Given where we are now, I can't see how that can realistically come in with the pension increase orders. How long are you looking to give members notification of these changes when we actually can be certain what they are? So the minimum we were ever going to give was at least one month from the date in which they would receive their pension. So that is the 28th of – or it's the last Thursday of the month, so it's about the 28th, I think, in March. So we've effectively got a week now to review that data and because we can – as long as we've got confidence in the data, we can use that information to write to the members and then carry out the updates in the system. If in that time that we're not confident, we will obviously not do that because we recognise that at minimum a month for someone to be aware is only right. So if it doesn't give us enough time to do that, then we will certainly not be looking to – and we'll have to look at what plan B is in terms of dealing with this work. Have you got a plan B? Well, plan B will be whether we feel that we need to – whether – it's always around would we need to redo the whole date cut again after pensions increase or could the pensions increase be applied to the data that we've got? So there's two ways that you could do that and look at that and that way it might not be required to go through the whole process again. I think those are the two options of what plan B will be. But we don't know that yet really until the team have had a chance to – well, they're doing it right now. They're probably having conversations as we speak as to that information and making sure we're comfortable with what we've received. I would say that if there's any discrepancy cases that we've highlighted that should be excluded from the run, we will actually treat them separately and it will be done internally with a team set up to do that, which means it will bring some additional time and ways in which we can process that work and communicate if we're not confident. But it might be that we're confident on some of the data because there's some more straightforward. it's ones where they might have different payments where it's becoming tricky. So it might be that some goes this side and some doesn't. And that's the team we're doing that work now to sort of give us that assurance. So will you know that by this time next week? Well, we'll have to, is the answer, because if we don't know that, we've sort of run out of time to be able to communicate with the members. You've got to know, otherwise you don't know. Correct, yeah. And if we don't have it with enough time to do that information, provide that information, we just won't do it this side of pensions increase. I might give you a ring next Friday. Okay. That's what's happening. Any other comments on Tom's report here? I will repeat what Nick said. I mean, this is a tremendous performance in some of the clearing of these backlogs, the performance, the digitalization of the online retirements, obviously a huge step forward in terms of time saving. We're just sort of really pleased with the way things are moving. It's good. Thank you. And we are asked, what are we asked to do here, Toby? We're asked to note the content and make it, do we need to make any recommendations to the Petroleum Fund Committee? I don't think so. I think it is as we said. Okay. Thank you very much. We move on now to item eight, yes, item 10, which is the risk register update. Pages 85 to 112. We have Colette waiting in the wings because I think there's a sting in the tail of this report, which is really the mycery update, which is Annex 2. The lunchware of them will have studied carefully. But over to you, Colette, in terms of the risk register and this report. Thank you, Tim. So you'll recall that at the last meeting, we put forward the plans to rejig the risk register. So what you've got attached to this time is the risk register as it was previously. And so that's just been included for completeness. And so this report provides a brief update on where we are currently. Sorry, if I go to paragraph three, one of the recommendations from the last board meeting was that if we could put some narrative around our top five risks. So we've done that. So hopefully that helps to hone in on those top five. And unsurprisingly, mycery remains our highest risk. Work in progress at the moment. We've met with the individual teams and they've been looking at the whole of the risk register, breaking that down into their own individual responsibilities and identifying any additional ones. And that future work on identifying individual risks within individual teams is continuing. It's a brief report. So that's really it. Oh, sorry. Yes. And obviously, at next two, you have the My Surrey update, which is the important one. And both Tom and I are here and able to answer any questions from both the accounting side and the service delivery side. Thank you. So can I throw this over to the board then for comments on the risk register in particular? It actually is the same as last quarter. So I don't think we've seen anything different. and not much has changed in terms of the narrative behind it, I think, as I look at this. So any comments on the risk register? So if we then, I'm getting none, if we then turn to Annex 2, which is the financial system update, it starts the same way as it has before, but there are issues remaining. And I think we need to focus on page 111, which says service delivery operational issues have reduced, but there's a sting at the tail of this. There are two things who've gone really, really well. Tom, I think maybe we'll get you to talk about that. And then I'm afraid you're going to have to talk about the configuration and data cleansing, which is the third one, which remains, I think, our key concern within Union 4. For that, Tom, who wants to go with this? Yeah, I can start on there. So yes, so you're right. So we are now fully up to date with the sort of submission of monthly returns and as well as receiving the final pay information as part of the lever extract. So that's that employer and pensions payroll team that have been doing that work. That has allowed us for now to have all that information so we can start processing the cases. So that bit has been really positive. There are still a few snagging issues on those reports that need to be sorted, which the team continue to work on. But these are minor things now just to tighten up the level of data and the accuracy we're receiving. The bigger issue, and I suppose where the efforts that the county council are now focusing is all around that configuration. So they still need to make changes to the system that will ensure that the employees' and the employers' contributions are being calculated correctly. Now, they have in February put in the final configuration that allows the employees' contributions to be calculated properly. But the kicker to that is it's now left a lot of work to do and reconcile lots of records going back into 23, 24 and 24, 25 for those members who either were knocked out of the scheme incorrectly or their deductions have been incorrect. So they've got a lot of reconciliation work to do there. The plans are then in March that they're going to do the updates on the employer configuration, which will allow all those contributions to be calculated correctly. And that should run retrospectively backwards and potentially be able to do that for 23, 24 as well, which means it will recalculate any missed employer's contributions and that will make that payment that's due to the fund. And that will come with any associated interest as well on that. Now, those numbers are now sort of being finalized as to the cost. But, you know, we are talking in the sort of low millions of what's owed and in terms of a combination of employers and employees' contributions. And that's now what the County Council's biggest efforts are. They've now resourced it in such a way that they need to tackle that and rectify those records. They've brought in specific people to carry that work out. And that's what they'll need to be doing over the next few months in order to make sure that members' records are right so their benefits can be calculated right in the future, also to make sure the money's come over as expected. And also it will then support the issue of things like statutory items like benefit statements and annual allowance. It's all going to support that. But there is a significant amount of work for them to do there. I say they are resourcing it well and it is the governance around it and to sort this is much, much more positive than it was previously, which we are then and we're continuing to support on. So that is the huge piece of work. I think the other huge area and so I may jump in here as well is still around the accounting system. It still hasn't got the controls in place that should be there that will allow the fund to actively look after its bank accounts and actually sort of do its reconciliation work and have the oversight that it needs. A lot of work has been done by Kiva in our accounts team who is working with architects of Unit 4 to work out what are those requirements for the pension fund. That's now all been sort of laid out and documented. The next stage we're waiting for is we need to know now they've got that what are the options. So there's going to be some interim changes that help support it now but they should also be looking at a longer term plan of what does that mean to change the system to make it fully fit for purpose. That's the next stage we're waiting for for an options analysis I guess from the County Council now to work out whether that now meets the requirements and whether it can be achieved. I notice Lee of nodding along as you were saying all that that this is going to come up in the internal audit as one that you can't yet do effectively as what it boils down to. I think there are a number of questions so William first. Yes Chairman I think this is a multi-layered issue I mean quite clearly This is what sorry? A multi-layered issue and ranging from getting the software working properly so that the issue doesn't carry on but the thing that caught my eye is I can't imagine that given that you don't think this is going to be completed by the end of the financial year it's not going to be missed by the Council's auditors. They're going to raise this and from my experience of auditors what they will be more interested in is not so much that it hasn't been completed but the statement in the report which says we can't tell you when we think it will be completed that I think is not going to be accepted by an auditor they will want a clear plan as to how this matter can be brought to a conclusion and I'll just make that as an observation because to me it seems that not knowing where we're going is a real problem when the auditors read that. Yeah I mean I agree I think we are we are the final rung of what needs to be done by the county and then we are an output of that as a customer so you know we can continue to support but it's not in our control as to when that work will be done we can only really do ours once that information hits our desk effectively so I take your point but like I say it's slightly out of our control that one. From my knowledge and I'm away from this and I can't speak on behalf of Surrey County Council other than to hear the reports I hear is they take it very seriously indeed there's a whole what's it called the stabilization board that's going on which is really taking this whole matter in hand and obviously it needs to be sorted out as Tom says you know we're kind of tail end Charlie on this when it comes to the pension fund because it has huge ramifications elsewhere so all I can say is it is being taken seriously and I take your point about the auditors they will if they don't pick up on it sack the auditors well my point is they'll want a plan that's what they'll want it is what it is I think really I mean William you said it it is what it is I don't know how much more we can add other than to say as Nick has already said we do meet monthly with the team to see how they're getting on got another meeting I think in about two weeks time from trying to remember my diary but to see how this is progressing because it's it's just got to be sorted out but does anyone want to make Trevor thank you it's a very complex scenario but it gets made more complex looking at some of the issues that are highlighted when we talk about workarounds with Unit 4 because that to me is not really a long term solution it's something to get over the immediate hurdles rather than to provide a stable basis to go forward and are those workarounds between Unit 4 and Surrey County Council Unit 4 and the pension funds or is there a mix of things going on so they've made so the interim sort of adjustments are made for the accounts and the banking controls are purely that but they are just allowing more oversight and access than the team have had before to carry out their role so it is probably it's making slight changes to the user roles and the user accesses for members of our accounting team that's effectively most of what's what's going on with those sort of interim workarounds but they recognise and the stabilisation board recognise that that isn't a long term solution and they have said that and they are now working on they're working up what that final solution could look like but I think and I've been advised but in the next operational stabilisation boards which will be two weeks from yesterday and then two weeks down the road that's when we're going to find out or should be given a better understanding of a timeline as to or the options available to us what that really means and how much time and effort that might include so we are pushing for that timeline so that we can understand that but you're absolutely right they are there to make things better for now and increase the controls that our teams have but ultimately they don't solve the whole problem which is data I'm picking a similar point in many ways the absence of the ability to do daily bank recs throws into data that you have on that particular aspect that's coming into play so I don't know if Colette whether you want to pick that one up particularly shall I pick that yes certainly yes so so we we are able to do the bank reconciliation so it is a combination of two things the fact that there actually is a lot more bank reconciliation because of the increase in the number of employers we've actually got and also then that identifying and allocating that money out to my Surrey is a longer process but it will all be done and picking up on your comment earlier around everything needs to be allocated properly so that we can do end of year absolutely it does so when we've been working with the external auditors this time round who are currently doing it they understand the challenges that we've had in trying to do this and these short term fixes that we're putting in will help us to better reconcile going forward better allocate our money going forward but unfortunately because they're not going to come in until now we're in exactly the same position with last year's accounts that we were in with the previous year's accounts as well so my Surrey has caused some significant issues around actually creating the financial accounts at the end of the year all we can do I think is to wish you wish you well in the resolution of these matters and Surrey County Council with it does anyone have as far as this particular risk register update is concerned item 10 we're asked to note the content of the report and make any recommendations to the pension fund committee if required I can't see that they are they can be required they're aware of all this as well and we can certainly note the content of the report does anyone have any further remarks they want to make before I close this item okay thank you very much so we move on now to item 13 which is on page 155 of the papers which is the conflicts of interest review again this is really more of an update it seems to me of a policy that already exists Colette you're in where are you over there you're the lead on this particular one is there anything you want to bring out to us I personally have read it and I don't find it very startling or difficult to understand in terms of what is or what isn't a conflict but I will throw it open to the board in a minute but have you any thoughts good just a quick intro so this conflict of interest policy is for the Surrey pension fund itself and what it does is it combines the three current conflicts of interest policies that we have in existence under the constitution for council members under the terms of reference for board members and under the council constitution for us as officers and any advisors to the fund as well this is in response to our improving the governance of Surrey pension fund which has both been agreed through the board through committee and then through full council where we introduced in the committee terms of reference that we would produce a combined conflicts of interest policy that specifically addresses potential conflicts between the council in its dual role as administering authority and a scheme employer so this policy as I say brings together those three conflict policies provides appendices at the end annexes at the end of the policy that show how we will record conflicts going forward and how we will engage with both pension fund committee members and board members where we are registering any conflicts at the point in time that people are appointed to the board and the committee thank you thank you and then the policy itself is in annex one which as I say that is what I have read and found reasonably straightforward to follow does anyone have any comments questions concerns William a question really which doesn't have to be answered necessarily today I'm quite interested in the relationship between the conflict of industry declaration that you might have to make at any point in time and your responsibilities as an individual member of the board anyone who's ever been on a listed or a private company knows that if there's a worker nomination on that board their statutory duty is to the company and not to the organisation nominated them well I'm here to represent the members others are here to represent the employers now do we have a duty and if so what's its authority to the board rather than to the members who we represent or is it different and I don't need an answer today but I'd like to know that if just to take a hypothetical example if we had so much money that we decided to return some in the form of lowering employers contributions but nothing for pensioners then I could vote on that against it as a member of the pensioners because it's not in their interests or I could say well perhaps this has got wider implications for the pension fund as a whole so I would welcome clarification at some point on where an individual and it's important that it's individual whether it's an employer or a pensioner none of us are independent members where does our responsibility lie and where is the authority for that responsibility where does it come from it's a joddy good question I can say that's certainly true Colette have you got any immediate thoughts on that I was going to say yes can I say no at this particular point in time so we can check but I think the clarity around the responsibilities members of the member representatives of the board represent the members of the fund the employer representatives of the board represent the employers of the fund there is no overarching responsibility to the board and the permission for that comes from the public sector pensions act my point then is does that mean that there is almost an automatic built-in conflict of interest no because anything you must be doing must be in the interest of the members so anyway we can debate that later it's not meant to be a clever question it's meant to be a real one it's a jolly good one I mean I frequently as a as a trustee of a pension scheme what is good for the employer who is sponsoring that pension plan may not be good for the members so there is that kind of built-in conflict except for the fact if you're a trustee of the pension scheme your loyalty is to the pension scheme and not to the employer which I think that's been said here it's always slightly different than the way the board is constituted what you heard what Neil said I can't say it any better than that so I think you're you're if there is a conflict yes it's there as it were but life's a bit like that does that make sense I'm not sure that I that I understand that we need we may need to say this offline William because to me there is it's very clear that your responsibility as a member representative is to represent the membership your responsibility as employer representative is to represent the employers there is no overarching it's you know and that that is I mean we that that's in the terms of reference it's in the public and it's enshrined in the public sector pensions act but but I'm very happy to take it off offline and give you something a bit more formal on that so I mean so if we were to use the surplus for want of a better word and I'm going to say hate the word in the pension scheme give it all back to the employers that would not be in the members interests in my view because then they'd have to get the money back again when they needed it for example it's a particularly obvious example so but I think what Neil's saying is your responsibility is the members and therefore to say you don't agree with it except it's not your decision in the context of the board that's irrelevant yeah because that's not a decision the board is not a decision making body yeah so in the context of the committee that that I I agree it's it's it's more nuanced but I don't as a quasi scrutiny that scrutiny committee that's which is not decision making I don't think that's relevant okay so I put on my notes here I was looking for comments from the board on the conflict of interest review thank you for that one William that's that's an interesting one are there any other comments on this or otherwise we've got three things to do to consider and note the content of the report to provide comments and suggestions for consideration by the Surrey pension fund as to the content of the Surrey pension fund draft conflicts of interest policy if relevant do we have any comments and suggestions I don't think so we would clarify the point that William has made and to make any recommendations to the pension fund committee I I don't think so so could we take that then as completed that item and then we'll move on to item 14 which is on page 181 of these papers running out of paper now which is the Surrey pension fund internal audit progress report again I'm sorry to say like a broken record but I think it's a really straightforward report there's not a great deal to say the report itself is attached to it but I will pass over to Liam particularly just to talk about what he sees as coming up thank you chair yes yeah as you said fairly straightforward report obviously happy to take any questions in a minute around anything in there that anyone has I just see I'll see two audits completed in quarter three one around the pension funds business continuity arrangements which you'll see was provided with reasonable assurance and couple bits just to note obviously there were three actions agreed with with management just mainly in relation to getting it to a final stage of sort of maturity and ongoing improvements for that and then one around the overseas pension life certification I guess you'd call it a pilot exercise that was undertaken around the use of the external supplier just to provide the fund with some assurance around how that looked what sort of controls are in place and if it was then made a more permanent arrangement what could be improved for those arrangements so as you'll see there are some agreed actions there as well for that and that also received reasonable assurance in terms of action tracking and we obviously track high priority actions as a standard and then sample check lower medium and high priority actions in terms of ones that we can look at at the minute are all implemented obviously as you'll see further down there's obviously the issues we've already discussed around the banking controls review and follow-up and the actions relating to that we'll see at this time won't be but our plan is to have another chat in March with Neil and the rest of the team and to see where we are with that and whether we can look at that again or not then and then make a plan moving forward to see how we how we deal with that and providing some updated assurance but you don't think you're likely to be in a position to do the banking controls review in March for what's been said so far yeah I mean given the current circumstances I'd be surprised if much changed obviously we'll have to have that discussion then but once we've had that discussion we'll have to agree some way forward in terms of we would need to provide some updated assurance at some point we can't really just sit there with this sort of lingering forever so yeah we'll come up with a plan and then obviously we can communicate that to the board of what that will look like going forward as well for that and that's it really just a highlight in there you'll notice a couple of pieces of work have started in this quarter as well so that's one around the desk administration process and also around pension fund investments so hopefully we can provide you with an update of the next board for those as well any questions just to be clear pension fund investments is not the nature of the investments is the process no it's the administration around yes thank you any comments board on any of this travel just a question about when or how you'll be looking to test the business continuity plan because it's one thing to have it written down on paper and everybody's got a copy of it it's another thing for it to actually be shown to work yeah so as part of it we look for controls that are in place such as for example the testing of the plan itself so whether it's been tested sort of in a scenario or what sort of processes are in place for that obviously at the moment it's not necessarily a formally mature plan so there are still some improvements to be made with that as you'll see from there in regards to you know for example the training around the business continuity plan and engaging sort of the staff with it as well but also a timetable to get back to a point where it is mature so when we did this review we do look at stuff like whether it's been tested when it will be tested and how often so yeah with that as part of what we look at as well but as of yet it's not a fully mature plan so those things aren't necessarily happening as of yet sorry is there a timetable to complete the plan and then test as of yet no that was one of the actions from the audit was for there to be a time film put in place for that to happen any other thoughts or comments but i take your point travel until somebody's actually given it a sort of not a dry one a kind of wet run ready to see if it works you don't know do you so shall i chip uh tim shall i just chip in briefly there then thank you that yeah that sits with the accounting governance team um in the risk area and yes as liam says we're we have we're working on the timetable to do these tests and identifying each each stage as we need to so we've got some scenario testing that we're working with um the team with we've got grab bags that we're working with the crrf um emergency resources team as well so things are happening in the background and um we will be progressing this again over the coming months okay so might we see more on on this at the next meeting that's may or is it likely to be a bit yes may or probably a little bit later depending on how the scenario testing is going we go may july and then november so yeah okay thank you uh any other thoughts if not then i think uh we're basically we need to note the report and consider any further action well i think we've just done that we've considered further action um both on the banking controls and indeed uh on the business continuity um so i think we can take this report as noted thank you uh which brings me to item 15 which is the lgps uh background report as you can see board there's almost nothing happening um really quite a lot of things that are going on some of which we've discussed already and some of which we uh possibly haven't gone into in the same degree of detail uh neil do you want to pick out any uh if i can call them highlights uh yeah just a couple of things i just wanted to draw to the board's attention the first is and we've had the discussion about external audit already in this meeting um that you members will will be aware that there is a there's a review consultation on a review of external audit in local government we understand as part of this review there that the government are willing to separate the pension fund um audit from the wider council audits um which is something yeah we will be supportive of as officers um the other the other area we've discussed a lot about consultations and fit for the future so i'm not going to rehearse that conversation again um unless members wish to um the other area one just wanted to highlight really was the changes to inheritance tax and how that interplays with the lgps um that there there will be an impact um on death benefits um and uh we we have responded to the consultation um and that that there i've exhausted my technical knowledge so if you don't need any more um my colleague sandy to my right um is on hand to give to give the detail on that trevor yes thank you i was going to to ask about that because i i i understand the concept but i'm not clear how it works um in terms of what the impact on the administration of the fund is for this particular change and the impact on the individual's family or this descendants or however their their will works out and what it seems to be a very convoluted approach to me but that was it was directly that was the question here the the consultation asks so sandy you wrote it you should take uh okay so it's come about because the lgps is a discretionary scheme um so therefore we have discretion who we pay and that at the moment doesn't form part of um inheritance tax when they're reporting like death grants etc so this would affect the death grant payable um it would mean that the we would have two months in which to issue information to legal personal representatives so they would have to gather all that information from each pension scheme that that person paid into so it's would they be aware of every pension scheme because not everybody passes on that information um to their loved bonds and lets them know they would then have to go on to an hmrc calculator and input all that information which would then tell them what what the tax is due um and they would then have to provide that to the pension administrators the schemes who would then have to apply it and have six months in which to pay the death grant and deduct the income tax um and put it to hmrc so it's all very tight time scales how does hmrc know what somebody's um inheritance tax position is under the rest of their estate presumably they would gather that information from where the legal personal representative logs it how they record that and tie the two up i don't know i think this calculator this proposed calculator will be a new um online calculator i'm struggling with the concept of this and how it how it works in practice i think we all are that's yeah and can i take it the response was this really needs thinking through yes so it was pushing back because there if the legal personal representative has to report other things so for example like the the rest of the estate so it could be property etc and they are then that the legal personal representative is responsible for paying the inheritance tax on that does it make not make more sense to leave it so that it's a legal personal representative responsible for paying all of that tax extending the deadlines because the deadlines are very tight um if there's any changes to information etc that's reported or it could be that there's a change to the amount that's payable and what happens if it then falls out of scope for the six months so yeah i think there's a lot of perfect yeah if it would be helpful we can share our consultation response we don't normally check technical but stuff but i'm very happy to share with members if if if if you feel it would be beneficial i have to say i don't i don't really understand that at all it just seems to be the death benefit payable under the surrey pension fund is payable according to the the expression of wish and so we're saying this is going to be a tax charge on that could be it it's because it will form part of the estate whereas at the moment it falls outside so if the value of the estate is more than 325 000 pounds then that's when it then becomes subject to inheritance tax there are other circumstances where that limit can rise like if they're that a spouse can pass on um something to to their their other half or if there is property but basically it's if the value of the estate is more than 325 000 pounds it's like a nightmare to be well they're really worth a push back anything else lovely you want to bring from this deal any other thoughts from the board on on that particular one right well thank you very much everyone we are asked to note the content of the report well i think we have um the date of the next meeting is scheduled for the 23rd of may although there's some doubt about that date has been changed has that been changed or not do you i think we'll stay with yeah yeah okay uh so 23rd of may is what it is uh we'll see you there and it seems to me that when we get to that date we've got quite a lot more updating to be reported on from what's come out of today so i'm going to close the meeting if that's okay chairman sorry can i just ask one quick very quick thing yeah i think we should have any other business item on the agenda by the way i've been asked elsewhere to recommend examples of good dashboards to recommend what sorry to recommend good dashboards yeah and i'd like to include ours um i don't see why not it's on a public reports pack but i wouldn't do it without the board being comfortable with it first so if there's no objections i i will actually put it forward i have no objection but i whether okay thank you but we should have it there's any other business item but we don't but we never do do we is there is there a reason do you know do you know toby why we don't have any other business on here no on occasion you obviously have an item sometimes on committee for urgent business and there has to be a reason for that it can sometimes be viewed as a sidestepping of the of the announced items you need to give yeah yeah because this isn't a council committee and and so it has a different absolutely yeah that that was as i said as general for committee advice as opposed to i realized this on sound of the 72 acts etc had its own legislation okay yeah you stick it i found in meetings with any other business you think you finish the meeting then people go talking forever about all kinds of of things which is so i'm rather glad we don't have it nonetheless i take your point so i am going to close the meeting then at uh 12 7 12 18 i suppose thanks thanks to everybody for attending thank you george for coming and listening in i i hope you found it instructive or entertaining or something as i think william you're in time for gatwick