Transcript

Transcript

I don't have the idea at all. Right. Okay. So we have the minutes of the last meeting. Does anybody have any comments? Can I assign a copy of the minutes as a due record? Thank you. Moving on. We have absence of members. Well, we've already covered that as a pecuniary interest. Item number three. I'm going to start by declaring a non-pecuniary interest by virtue of shareholding. Thank you very much, Chair. I have the same declaration as you. Sorry, pardon? I have the same declaration as you. Councilor Mearing-Smith. I made a declaration last time, but I'm not sure it's terribly relevant. I don't think it's a community which might be bought somewhere in the investment fund. Thank you. Yes, I did notice that in the last minute. I'd just like everyone to be clear that we're trying to tighten up a little bit on this. Thank you. There's items. There are none I'm aware of. Okay. Okay. So we're going to go into the agenda items. I'm going to take, with the committee's approval, agenda item 17 first. So people could make sure that they have them. So this is the ratification of the situation pertaining to prepayments and subsequent repayments between the Council and pension fund. So I'm going to ask our finance consultant, Kevin Bartle and Jessica on that. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chair. Make sure everybody can hear me okay. Yes, thank you very much. Thumbs up. Good evening, everybody. And express my thanks firstly for committee permission to take the item early tonight. It's very convenient for me. So thank you for that. Thank you very much. The members of the committee will be aware of the background to this situation and indeed were present. I think most of the members, but not all of you were present at the briefing the other evening. So I'm not sure, Chair, whether you want me to go through the whole backstory again, which obviously I can do. But given the number of briefings that you've had and the background session also that we've had, I wonder if I wonder if I could summarise or would you like me to go back through the whole story just to just to double check that, Chair? Yeah, thanks. Thank you. I don't think we need to go through back through the whole story unless anybody particularly wants any more information. An update and a summary and an update and if people have any questions will be fine, I'm sure. Thank you, Chair. So just moving forward then, members of the committee will recall the situation in relation to payments that were were made that we have now been deemed designated as unlawful. And we've been working for some time with with colleagues at the actuary and other colleagues who's with us tonight, of course, about how we might rectify this situation. So just very in summary, then, as you know, we have a situation that we need to to rectify, which is two payments made from the pension fund to the council and a third payment of seven point eight or four million pounds. The other issue that we spent some time discussing was the prepayment that was made by the council in advance of the secondary contributions of 20 and a half million pounds back in 2020. And although that has been deemed to be unlawful, also, given the time that has passed and that it was potentially lawful, we are not recommending any action as regards the prepayment. We are therefore considering that the prepayment was possibly the action that was intended. So therefore, if we assume that the prepayment was as intended and we were taking no further action in relation to that, which is, of course, the first of our three recommendations on the paper this evening. That means we had three options to consider. Those three options were discussed at the working group the other night, but the three options were also discussed at the last meeting of this committee. When I was acting as the 151 officer with you, but just to remind ourselves of the three options. Option one would be to allow the fund to retain the third payment of seven point eight or four million pounds. And with the that designed to, if possible, to allow the fund actually to identify the effect of the additional payment on the contribution over over a period of time in that the council would then pay lower employer contributions to as close as possible. And then we'll get to a position where the fund and the council would be balanced as if the situation hadn't occurred. There are one or two issues in relation to option one. And, Chair, you may wish to ask Stephen to comment on those. I think in our ideal world, we would like the payments to be adjusted over a short period of time, i.e. three years. Stephen has said to us that may be a challenge and it may be a little longer. In fact, it could be as long as over a 20 year period, which is a key reason why we feel that we can't make a recommendation, a final recommendation to the committee this evening. And Stephen has kindly agreed to make contact with the government actor's department to elicit their input onto whether our preferred option of a shorter period of rectification would be acceptable. And I don't believe we have any further information on that this evening, but Stephen can confirm. The second option on the table, option two, was for the additional payments. And when I talk about the additional payments, just to remind everybody that they were the duplicate secondary contributions actioned by the council's payroll. So those additional payments and the repayments to be unwound. And then that would mean that the third repayment, it wouldn't be then necessary for the third repayment to be made. The third option on the table is to make the third planned repayment via formal formal authorization from the pension fund to the committee. As made clear more than once, the rectification requires the pension fund committee to be content with the proposal that we eventually go with. And that's why primarily we are discussing these options with you this evening. And we have also discussed in principle these options with our external auditors. And obviously that's really important that they're content with the rectification. At the workshop with members, we discussed the merits of options one and two. We were all pretty much of the opinion that option three, it is a non-runner, leaving options one and two on the table. We had originally intended to come to you with a proposal for going forward with option one. But the information received more recently from Stephen Lee Actry was the point that we may not be able to rectify this over the short period, relatively short period, the three years that we had originally hoped. So we're in a position now where we feel we can't make the firm recommendation to the committee this evening to go for either option one or option two until we receive firstly information in relation to Stephen's approach to Gads and his further consideration over the period of time that he would be able to make the adjustments. But also importantly, you'll recall that there is a potential tax implication if we go ahead with option two. And we have written and we have written, the council has written to HMRC, setting out the position through our solicitors, Eversheds has written to HMRC requesting whether they would give a view on whether or not there could be a potential tax liability, both for the council and the fund. And we are yet to receive a response for that. I'd lastly say, Chair and members of the committee, as I conclude, that obviously we don't want this to go on forever. The council's accounts have got to be rectified. We do need to rectify this situation. But there is good possibilities that we'll have heard from both Gads and HMRC, which will clearly and very, I'll repeat the word, sorry, clearly give us a view and a steer on the best option for us to take, either one or two. So this report is hopefully clear enough in relation to the options and our recommendations to the committee tonight. As I already mentioned earlier, no recommendation to take any action on the prepayment for the committee. Please, please, please, to note the progress made on rectifying the situation and note the conclusion in the body of the report, which is to not make a decision this evening to defer and to come back when we have more information. From those two key players repeating again, Governor Actuary Department and HMRC. And lastly, we have agreed to come back to you with procedures and we'll give a further update on delegations of functions on the pensions committee, which potentially got us into this position, updated procedure notes, officer training protocols and other documentation requirements to clarify. And this is the key point that we properly respect the separation between the pension fund and the council as an employer. I'll pause there, Chair, for any comments or questions. Thank you very much. Thank you, Kevin. That's a really helpful update. I think that ties in with the recommendations that we have. I would ask if anybody has any, would like to make any comments or questions on that. I can't see everybody, but. No. And just to sort of pick up on a point here, if I may, that Kevin asked about any progress with GAD. So we haven't started that liaison with GAD yet, but I'll start that process tomorrow morning and following this meeting and then hopefully be able to provide an update. Thank you on surplus spreading periods, if that would help the committee to the team. Thank you. Yes, yes, Councillor Mitra. Thank you very much, Chair. Speaking as the chair of the GARMS committee, which includes the audit function. Obviously, this has been across my desk very literally recently. So I think the first thing. is thank some of the officers who've been involved in trying to sort this out. This is, I think, quite unique for almost all of them. And I don't think any of them have come across this before. So, you know, thank you to those officers who have been involved and for their professionalism in trying to resolve the situation. I would just add, on a personal level, that it has been deeply frustrating that for a number of years we have not had signed off external audits. We don't, I don't, I don't need to abuse BDO right now. We spent most of the last year doing that. But I do think that a number of the issues that we've had since the last closed audit, which I think was 2019. You know, it really is quite astonishing to go six years without a closed audit. I think this issue very strongly highlights the need to ensure that our external auditors get things back on track and get the council back towards a better rate of assurance. And that the council as a whole takes process and doing things properly to the heart of what it does. I think I'll leave it at that, but I, you know, I think this is something we very much need to impress on external auditors. They've got a, well, internal audit, but the external auditors have got to be sorting out the process. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor. That was quite useful. Did you have any comments? I mean, as we discussed extensively in our pre-briefing, we completely agree with the position as presented by Kevin and agree that that is the right way forward and therefore are happy to support these recommendations. However, I do agree with Councillor Mitra that there's also the issue of the accounts and to be honest, I was shocked at the number of adjustments that the auditors identified in the accounts that had been prepared. But no doubt we will come to that in the next item, none of which have anything to do with this item, in fact, but we do seem to have a pretty fundamental problem in our pension accounting as evidenced by this audit report. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor for that, for that contribution. We have our next meeting is in June. We had a couple of weeks ago an update on this situation. So, I don't know, Kevin, if you want to suggest there may perhaps be an update between now and June. I know it might be, it might actually be quite difficult to say at this point, but I don't know if you have any comments on that. As Councillor said, it would be good to try and get this rectified as soon as we can. Absolutely. I think myself and all the officers involved would like this rectified as soon as we possibly can. It's not ideal. I do think by the time we get to the May Garms Committee, Councillor Mitra mentioned the next committee and Councillor Zincon too, that, you know, there's significant matters of audit. I think, and I must, you know, ask Anissa to give a view too on this particular point, but I think ideally, we would like to get to a position before we get to the Garms Committee. Anissa, as we discussed the other day, would be an ideal time if it were possible to do so. Yes, absolutely. Perhaps you'll know when that could possibly happen. Absolutely. Anissa. Thank you. I was just going to take the opportunity to bring Stephen Scott in, who is the Fund Actuary, because obviously one of the key lines of inquiry is engaging with the Government Actuary Department and understanding how they would feel about unwinding the prepayment over three years. So Stephen, could I just ask for your comments on that particular point? So, yeah, as I mentioned earlier, I mean, I'll commence engagement with the Government Actuary on this as soon as possible. So I'll do that tomorrow, right to the Government Actuary setting out the situation and the proposal and seeking their view on that. Now, at Hyman's, we've developed strong relationships with the Government Actuary over recent years, you know, as part of the try and evaluation work we do. So I am confident that we'll get a response from GAD. Now, whether we get a response before the next meeting in June, I don't know, but I certainly will have an update by that time. And in the unlikely situation where we don't get a response from GAD, that would necessarily stop me making a decision that's appropriate and an appropriate way forward. Do you have an idea perhaps when we might be able to have an update, perhaps in May? I mean, the ball will be in GAD's court and it really depends on, you know, their priorities. But I would hope at the very least that once I do start communicating with them, they will give me an idea of time scales. So we can know when to expect a full response. Absolutely. Right. Okay. I think if no one has anything further to add, I can see. Can we go to the recommendations, which says no further action as regards the prepayment. Note the progress made on rectifying the situation and note the conclusion of the body of the report. And that will be a further update to the committee regarding the delegations of functions on pension matters, procedure notes, officer training and other documentation. And requirements to clarify the separation between the pension fund and the council as an employer. And I take the recommendations as agreed. Thank you very much, everybody. And thank you, Kevin, for joining us this evening, even if it was online. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll be there next time. Okay, right. We are moving on back to our agenda. I'll be there, which is item seven. And your accounts and external audit update. Okay, I think Mark this might be your paper. It's on page. It starts on page 17. People want to find that. Thank you chair. So, um, grant or grant Thornton, uh, completed the audit of the. 23, 24, um, report pension fund reporting accounts, and they're all defined in this report is attached, uh, as an appendix, um, in the paper, included in appendix B of the audit findings report is the officers responses to the six recommendations detailed. In the report. And I'd like to pass over to Paris Williams from Grant Thornton, um, who's attending virtually, who will give detailed update on the report and answer any questions that members will have. Thank you. Can, can everybody hear me just fine? Yes. Perfect. I can hear you. Yes. Thank you. Um, for members in, in front of you will be our audit findings report. We took an interim audit findings report in October, and this, this report is updated for, for progress since that date. Um, I'll take the report read, but what I'll do is I'll, I'll highlight a few, um, sort of key bits to, to bring it to life and then, then pause for, for questions. So the first thing to mention is that, um, this was our first year as Grant Thornton, um, coming in for the new PSAA contract. So 23, 24 was our, our first year. And as, as already been mentioned in the committee, um, the pension fund hadn't been audited for several years. And that obviously on top of it, your first year audit with the previous years, not having been audited, that made it a bit of a challenge. Um, so we've been working with your finance colleagues over the past few months to, to, to do as much audit work as we can. And the, the findings report highlights those findings to you. The conclusion of, of an audit often will be in my opinion. Well, it will, it will be in my opinion. And typically for, for most audits, they end up with a true and fair opinion. Uh, no, apologies. Could I stop you? Because there's a point here. I really don't understand the audits not being completed and the implication of your words and in the report. that no work was ever done, which is correct. Because my understanding was that the previous auditors did work, but were unable to complete their audits. So it isn't correct to say no audit work was done. What is correct is say no audit work was completed. And I think it's very important that we know which of those two worlds we're in. Sorry, Councillor. I was going to ask, I thought it was, um, you couldn't hear. I was going to ask if we could have questions at the end, have the report first, and then we can have that. But I take your point, but we'll have it at the end. Thank you. I can, I can tackle that point. So in terms of the previous audit. So before we, we came in, I think there was a sort of a mixed bag between some where lots of audit work has been done, but the opinion hadn't yet been provided for various reasons. Uh, to more current audit years, I think 22, 23, where very limited amount of audit work was completed. So it's a sort of a mixed bag in terms of each of the years, but ultimately in terms of our views going in, there wasn't necessarily an audit file to, to review, to place reliance on in terms of opening balances work. So when it comes to opening balances, Councillor, um, unless we go and audit those ourselves, I couldn't give an opinion of true and fair. Um, which right from the start puts, puts myself in a position where the, the, the, the opinion that I'll be providing be a disclaimed opinion for that base, uh, for that reason. And that was explained as part of when I presented the audit plan. Um, sort of going back to where we are in terms of our audit findings report, the, the work that we've carried out this year, the, the, the proposal or the plan was to audit your closing balances. That's sort of your investments, things that are on the balance sheet as at year end, as well as those transactions in the year, for example, contributions, benefit payable, and provide that assurance through in our audit findings report. Um, overall the, the audit has, has gone well. So for example, on, on the investment side, we've completed that work. We had some disclosure, um, uh, issues to identify, for example, uh, whether or not an investment is classified as level two or level three, but ultimately we were able to get to a position where we were comfortable with, with the investments. And we've provided that in our findings reports. One of the areas which we did do work was around the triennial revaluation. So this is the membership data as a, um, March, 2022. So we went back and looked at whether or not the information sent to the actuary was complete and accurate. Uh, that work, um, we, we, we almost got there. We, we had one where there was, where there was a discrepancy and we, we ran out of time to follow that up in terms of that evaluation, but we will pick that up as part of our next year audit. But ultimately of our sample of 25, 24 had passed. So that's a good position to be in. It's not to say that the, the, the, the, the one that was a discrepancy is, is definitely a fail, but it's an area that we need to follow our evaluate. Generally, the engagement has been good. I think it's fair to say that there were some delays in obtaining various bits of information. And I think going into next year, we'll work with finance to, to ensure the process is slicker so we can get that information, uh, sooner or in the right format. Um, just trying to highlight if there's anything else I want to, to mention. Um, we have raised several control findings, um, and there are management responses to all of those. There's one that I wanted to provide an update to as there was some, some work in the last few days and that's in relation to the related parties. So we, we highlighted the control recommendation. I'm just going to try and grab the page. So on page, page 37 of my report, we were talking about, um, related party transactions and, and making sure that the pension fund had disclosed all relevant related party transactions. And, and to support that, we need the declarations of interest signed. So we know what interests officers or, or, or counselors may have. Um, there were delays in us obtaining those and hence why we raised the control recommendation. Since we drafted this report, we have then since received the declarations for the offices in question. Um, and there's nothing to report in relation to those. There was nothing, um, undisclosed within the accounts. I think there were several counselors where we hadn't got the return, but that is, I think, because those counselors had since left. So, um, again, nothing that I'm particularly concerned with. So I would, if I was writing this now, I would remove that, um, uh, that recommendation that's in there, but the, the, the others stand. And it's important that, um, officers implement those control findings to improve the process for next year. There was a comment. I think I can't remember. I couldn't see the counselor who raised it about the level of errors that we found. And I think just the, I've done a number of work, uh, this year on. Audits where either the opinion was disclaimed in the prior year or no opinion has yet been provided. And the common theme that we are finding from external audit is we're finding a lot more issues than we normally do. So this is sort of on theme of if you, if, uh, if the annual audit cycle is missed, it does start to, um, create lots of issues in terms of the future. And I think, uh, a counselor, uh, I think Councillor Mitchell talked about the importance of external audit and that, um, sort of that annual inspection. Um, and I think that, that plays through in terms of the disclosure errors. So all of the misstatements that we've found are disclosures that are not impacting sort of the bottom line, but it's in the way that the accounts are presented. So we're hoping that with the adjustments that we've proposed that have been put into the final accounts that to improve the financial reporting of, of the pension fund, um, such that in the, in, in future years, we don't have quite so many disclosure errors, but it's probably, um, built up over, over a period of time. I'll pause there for any questions in terms of our, our audit findings report. As, as I said before, there are sort of two, two issues that are preventing myself from issuing the opinion. The first being that previous audits need to be signed off. Uh, and that's, that's with the predecessor auditor. So I can't issue my opinion until that, that takes place. And the second is the resolution of the contributions issue, which was discussed earlier. So once those two things have been done, I will then be able to issue, issue my opinion. Um, and it's also to say to the, to the committee work has already begun on the 24, 25 planning. And I believe that the next committee, you will receive the audit plan setting out, um, how we plan to approach that audit. Uh, I'll pause now for questions. Thank you. Um, does anybody have that much? Did you want to say something or should I call questions first? Do you want to have a comment or should I ask questions first? Uh, good questions first. Does anybody have any questions on what we've had so far? Councillor Sinkin. Um, if I could start with your related parties for you. Um, over the years, the disclosures which councillors are asked to make, which I assume is a function of law, have got further and further away from reality. In the context of investment. And therefore, is there actually a form of disclosure for those involved in the fund, which may result, which may relate to the investments they actually hold, which you have observed anywhere? Because honestly, if you look at the disclosures against which councillors are supposed to provide information, the probability of it. In earth thing, anything which could relate to the disclosures that we made at the beginning of this meeting in the context of investments held is almost zero. Um, so it feels to me that this is an utterly flawed process and the idea that you're auditing it on the basis of the standard accounting. Um, well, sorry, the standard disclosures that councillors are supposed to make. I would just observe to you, I think is just bizarre. And I wondered whether you'd ever looked at that to find out what councillors are asked to disclose. And therefore, what you're asking officers to disclose. So, in terms of, I'll probably pick this up. I don't know if officers want to pick it up as well. But from, from, from, uh, from an accounting perspective, there are, uh, I think it's eyes 24 in which, uh, in terms of financial reporting, uh, those related party transactions need to be disclosed. And the, the council needs to have these processes in order to identify whether or not any of those are present. Um, and part of that is ensuring that each councillor and senior officer complete a declaration of interest, not for themselves, but people that they're closely related to. And it's only through that process in which your finance colleagues will be able to know if there is a potential related party. And if so, would need, would require to disclose them. So, um, that's, that's the, the normal process. I think we can sort of, uh, have questions as to whether or not those are being filled out correctly, completely, and all of those sorts of things. And I think that's a, that's a matter for officers as well. Those related party transaction, um, uh, sort of, sorry, those, uh, register of interest. Whilst it fulfills the accounting for related parties, it's also a really important process for the council in terms of identifying conflicts of interest. So it sort of has a duality of its purpose in terms of managing and identifying conflicts of interest from within, from within the council and the pension fund. But then it also plays into the process by which related parties from an accounting perspective can be identified. Thank you for the response. Mark, did you want to say something? Um, it's probably best chair, if I, if Anissa might want to say anything about the accounts. Um, it might be best if, um, Anissa, if she's got any comments about the accounts. I was just going to flag that, um, in terms of the high rated recommendation around membership data. Um, I guess I just wanted the committee to note that since we've moved to West Yorkshire pension fund, obviously every committee does receive, um, uh, a, a membership in improvement, data improvement plan. Um, so hope I give some assurance that we are on a journey and that is really important. And we have been improving the data with West Yorkshire, obviously from an external audit perspective, it is not perfect at the moment, but you will have seen from the numbers reported, which was in the region of 26,000 missing fields down to 900. That is a significant improvement. Um, so I don't think we can criticize West Yorkshire for the fact that there is a high rated, um, recommendation associated with membership data because it is what they inherited and they've everything they can to reduce that. And we will continue to work with them to improve that and report to you as part of this committee, that improvement plan. So even though it's an annual recommendation, we will at per meeting bring something on the improvement plan. So that's the only thing I wanted to add. Thank you very much. Does anybody else have any questions? We need to try and, um, keep this a bit, not too long, otherwise we're not going to get through the agenda, but yes, Councillor. Just one final question, which is, um, again, in reading the report, there was this one person who was classified as deferred when they worked. Um, do we understand why that happened, understand why some of the common data isn't there and I can understand why some of the care data isn't there because we've been through that endlessly over the years, but by somebody. I don't know. I don't know the individual details, the details of the individual that Grant Thornton tested. Um, it will be brought up in our, our regular meeting at the next regular meeting we have with West Yorkshire to give more detailed information as to why that, uh, that situation occurred. And obviously if they need to review their processes and controls, then we would ask them to put that into place. Just ask that we get an understanding of how that occurred because, you know, a 4% error rate is very high. Um, and we don't know whether this was a unique case or just 4%. Um, and therefore I think we do need to understand that. Excuse me, it is within the tolerance, as I understand it, 4%. If, if, if I can just jump in slightly. Um, so this was a test that we performed. I mentioned earlier over the, the data that was sent to your actuary to complete the, um, triennial evaluation. So it's data as at March, 2022, that flows into the triennial evaluation. And having identified that discrepancy in that scenario as an auditor, right? I asked myself, well, how many more, um, and what we wouldn't typically do is extend our sample or target a sample to understand. Is this just one off or is there a more pervasive issue within the population? Um, we have run out of time to do that extra analysis, which will have probably helped explain whether or not this was one off. Whether, whether or not it was genuinely in error or if it's something else. We haven't got to the bottom of that just yet. So I have the same sort of questions and, uh, skepticism as yourself. And that's work that we will be planning to do as part of 24, 25, and we'll report the findings back as part of that work. I don't know if that helps as well. Thank you very much. Yeah. Do you have anything else to add? I'm trying to, I'm trying to move on. I would just add that, uh, I would expect us to be ahead of that by knowing what the answer is before we get to the audit and being able to provide you a full explanation to guide your work next year, which you can audit. Because it seems absurd that we would rely on you to do something that we ought to do ourselves. Do you have anything further to say? I'm going to move to the recommendations. No, just, I, I, I note Councillor Zinkin's point and we will take that forward, um, as an action to try and get done, um, relatively quickly. Okay. That's an action point to be taken forward as I understand it. Yes. Okay. Okay. Can I move to the recommendations in that case, please? Right. The recommendation is to that the pension fund committee, uh, notes the content of the audit findings report for 2324 and the management responses to the Grant Thornton's action plan recommendation. Those agreed. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We'll take the action point forward. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much, everybody. And thank you, Grant Thornton. Okay. Moving on to item eight, we have the risk management review, which is in our papers on page 67. All right. Mark, I believe this is also your paper. Okay. Uh, it is indeed chair. Thank you very much. Um, so this is now a standing item on each committee meeting, um, for where we review and present the, uh, both the administration and the non administration risk registers. Uh, the, the, the risk, both risk registers are, uh, reviewed quarterly. The last review took place on the 14th of March. Um, Tim from the CIV helped, uh, assisted with the review for the non administration risk register. And following this meeting, they will be put up onto the, um, council's pensions intranet page, um, for, for public perusal. Uh, on both risk registers, we reviewed the risk scores and, um, found that we didn't think there were any changes to any of the risk scores for any of the risks shown since, since the last review. And on both risk registers, there's one new view, uh, one new risk added, uh, on the administration risk register, risk ADM 21, which foreign discussions at the last committee meeting that we relate to the prepayment and repayment issue. Um, and although this, um, this, um, this, the situation has already occurred in the past, there are a number of mitigating issues and requirements listed in the register to make sure that this similar, uh, situation does not occur again. And again, on the non administration risk register, there's a new risk, uh, GEN 05, which details the potential risks for the fund should the proposals, uh, set out in the government's, um, fit for future costs. And again, there's a new consultation come into force, which is likely to, uh, possible, likely to happen sometime in the summer and the next few months. So happy to take any questions, chair, probably Tim on the non administration's register as well. Do you have any questions that you'd like to ask on the risk management? I had, um, well, there are a number, perhaps you could explain. There are a number of, um, items in red, which are, are ongoing. And so, um, and we've got action plan for, or we've got a date anyway, for when those are going to be reviewed. Yes, just chair, the items in red on both risk registers are updates in the actions that take, that we identified at the following the last review. Um, so the new actions that we've got or new updates to act previous actions, um, and determine what, what, what we need to look at risks. Sorry, I think this will be a standing item anyway on your, on your agenda, won't it? So, um, in the next couple of months, we'll be able to see how we've progressed with, uh, with the red items. I understand why Gen05 is regarded as, I mean, if the government tells us that the thought has changed, and we have to do something different, why is it being treated as a, I mean, if we said that we weren't going to be ready for the change, or we objected to the change, the labour group is opposed to the government policy. I think, well, Mark would know more than that. I think it's because it's, um, ongoing, hasn't been, hasn't been, uh, agreed yet. Is that? Yes, so I'm happy to come in there, councillor, if that's okay. Um, can you hear me okay? Just about okay. I'll try and speak, um, into, into, yes. So I completely agree with you in terms of the risk that it's not, you know, something that we should be, I suppose, worried about in a sense. But what's being proposed will lead to quite some significant change. So this is just to highlight to committee that there is change that is likely to come, and just to put it onto your, onto your radar. Um, so it's not saying that it might not, might not happen, but those proposals, which I think, uh, Mark will cover in a later item, will basically require the committee to review some of its governance structures, its relationship with the pool. Um, and we're just flagging that at this point. It is quite a low risk, but it's something that the committee needs to be aware of. Will change which we're going to have to manage if it happens. Yes, no, completely agree. So we, we can revisit how it's articulated in this, in this section, but I completely agree it is a structural change that just needs managing. I, sorry, does anybody else have anything to say? Sorry. Um, it, it says on, um, I can't see, I can't see what page it is, 102, that the actuary will attend the June 25th committee meeting to provide training as part of the 2025 evaluation process. Is that correct? Yes. Stephen, do you want to comment? Yeah, as far as I'm aware, is that correct? Yes. Yes. I happen to come along and provide that training. Thank you. Um, I think that was all the questions that I, I had. So if nobody has anything else to say, I'll move on to the recommendation. The recommendation for this paper is, uh, that the pension fund committee note the most recent administration and non-administration risk registers. Has everyone agreed? Thanks. Moving on to item number nine on page 111. And, um, this is about knowledge and understanding. Very important. Yes. Mark. Thank you, chair. Um, this is a standing item on the committee's agenda. Um, just a reminder to members that if, um, anyone undertakes pensions related training, um, please let the pensions team know, um, we do keep a training log for everyone. Um, and, uh, we update that as when we're, when we're, when we're advised of any training that's undertaken. Uh, and thank you to many members who have, who have passed details to us over the last couple of months or so. Um, um, we've recently organized training on the pension regulators new code of, general code of practice for both board and committee members. Um, for those who did not attend, uh, the sessions, um, we have sent out, uh, a couple of questions. Um, we have sent out according to the session and the slides that were, uh, were presented at the time by, by Aon. Uh, for council track reporting, we will send training details to you over the next few, few days or so, um, um, to, to, to, to detail what, what, what attention you wish to, to undertake as a new member. Um, in appendix B we've drafted a training strategy for both committee and board members, uh, along with officers and, um, um, strategy sets out what officers will do in terms of training and extending knowledge to all parties, which includes, uh, devising an annual training plan, uh, to identify the training needs for, for everyone members, board members, uh, committee members and officers. Um, um, the level of knowledge required. Um, this currently differs between what board and committee members, um, have to, have to have, although following the, uh, if the, if the recommendations from the government's fit for future, um, consultation come in, come into force, then it's possible that the committee members may have to take, uh, have to have more, um, pensioners, um, training and, and, uh, knowledge as well. Uh, it also rolls out the, the, the, the, the training plan also how the, the training will be rolled out. Um, as I said earlier, we do keep a log anyway of, of what training committee members and board members undertake. And again, relevant to, to cancer tracker board, it sets out the induction process for new members of boards and committees as well. So happy to take any questions, chair. Any questions from anybody? Did you have a question? Yeah, I saw. Oh, sorry. More comment than a question. Well, some of it is marked mandatory. Isn't it? I had difficulty last time accessing some of the online training, but it's going to be a mixture of some online, perhaps in person training, I think. It's ideal to get a mix of most, most training is done online these days. Sometimes it's useful to have perhaps on in person training as well. And there are, um, times when, when that's applicable and when sessions can be arranged. Yeah, I would, I was wondering if we could arrange perhaps a session. We have call over at six normally. So we could do six to 6.30 call over. That's enough time. And then we could have half an hour training between 6.30 and seven. We used to do that. Have, um, not necessarily for this committee, but in planning and other committees used to do that. I don't know if that's feasible. That's feasible, um, depending, I suppose, on the complexity of the subject you're training on. Um, cause half an hour might not be appropriate for some issues. Whereas for other issues, it might be absolutely. If. Think about that. I mean, it could, it could be a start. Couldn't it? At least have. When everyone's there anyway. No one's saying. If I may just maybe to, um, to, to support your view in terms of, um, training. Um, so member training is one of the key areas that in the fit for the future consultation, the government has placed, um, greater emphasis on, and that comes from the good governance review, where there is a requirement that, um, people who are charged with governance should have knowledge of that. So we, we are happy to provide, um, some of that introductory training, especially for new members. We can provide the support for that. In previous roles where I've worked, um, as head of pensions, what tends to happen is, before a big decision is made, members are trained on the subject matter. So this could also involve the investment consultants. They can come and speak to detail about strategy off, off record. Can, you can ask questions to them, um, and sort of have the query in terms of where the investment strategy, um, what, what the options could be available. So I, I think that would be best practice. And I think across the, um, the London boroughs, there is a lot of funds that would do do that, that just before the meeting, they'll have a brief session and we're happy to support. Thank you. I mean, this is a standing item anyway, so we will come back, we will come back to it, but I don't think it's something that we need to be a bit more disciplined about. Yeah. And obviously if any members have any particular subject they want training on, then let me know and I can arrange that appropriately. Yeah. We can slot that in. Yes. Councillor Zinkin. I believe there is an inconsistent local pension board members. And then it says dash and recommended training, which will further develop both the committee table in appendix a, it is clear that there is mandatory training in relation to the, um, um, two sets at least a mandatory training in relation to the members of this committee. So there is clearly an inconsistency in the paper, the members of this committee, exactly as we do for members of planning committees, then the text should reflect that. But it doesn't at the moment. Sorry. You might want to. Yeah. I know your point, Councillor. Um, I mean, in terms of on the table where like it says the, um, Hyman's Lola training portal is mandatory for, uh, for committee members. Um, I think whilst you're totally correct in what you say, that, um, there is no mandatory, uh, requirement for committee members to have, training, but I think if I remember correctly a while ago, it was suggested that that, that type of training was not mandatory. Should be done. Kind of by, by agreement in the committee might have been a while ago. That was done. Um, but I tell you a point about the wording and I'll review and get that changed. If, if, if need be. Yeah, I think, I think it does say, maybe that bit is a bit, not clear, but I think it does make clear that there is mandatory training for the committee as, as well as for the board. They may not necessarily always be the same, although I would have thought it would be similar, but I think that particular paragraph may be a bit confusing, but overall, yes, it is mandatory training for the committee. I knew that was your belief, which is why I think we need to just reflect on the words in the paragraph because they imply to me the opposite. Okay. Yes. It's not only my belief, it's, it's, it's written down that we should do it anyway. Whether I believe, I do believe it's correct. Yes. So, if I may just, just to add very quickly on that point. So obviously I'm conscious I'm new to the Barnett Fund, but what we've seen at other bars is they establish a training policy, which would then set out which ones of those trainings are mandatory for members and which ones are not. Typically a new member arriving on a, on a, on a committee will be agreed that they will take on a mandatory introductory course. So I think that's something maybe the committee might want to reflect on to be brought to a future meeting for, to consider what that policy is for the fund. Thank you. Can we? Oh, sorry, Councillor. I'm just a bit surprised that something like the mansion house speech should be considered mandatory. I mean, mostly it's a pooling waffle. Why should we have to spend that amount of time on it? Sorry, I didn't hear the question, Councillor. It's not a generic mansion house every year. We have to listen to this. Do we? It's just one particular mansion speech. Yes, you're correct. Councillor. It was, it was the, the last mansion house speech, which perhaps is not worded correctly, but it led onto the, the fit for the future consultation. Following, following that mansion house speech. So that's, I'll adjust the wording that the next time. So if we've been through the, the, the training for the consultation, I can't quite see when we need to go back to the speech itself. That's all. As I say, I'll review it for next time. And I don't, it's not that you have to actually review the speech. Is it patient? I think that we will be referring this as we go. And we've got representation now to help us do that, which might tighten up, tighten up things. Anybody else got anything they would like to say? On that fundamental. Otherwise, can we remove to the recommendation? The recommendations are the pension fund committee note the contents report that we know the training options available. I set out in appendix a, and that the pension fund committee note the LBB pensions team recommendation that the pension fund committee members complete the local government pension scheme, LGPS, online, academy, Lola training. So you can do that in your own time. But let's let Mark know when we do that. So he can keep it. In past committee members, we've had members listed on what training they did. We haven't got that this time. No, they changed the process and they get the, don't get that information anymore. Thank you everybody. Can we move on to the next item, which is, are we on item 10? 10. We're going to take the committee work program next because we have exempt items in some of the other, other papers. So can I move on to number 10 committee work program, please? Who's taking charge of this? I'm happy to make a comment through you. Oh yeah. And published. Okay. Thank you. So it's on page 134. It's a list of what's coming up at the next meeting, which is in June at the moment. It might change. So has anybody got any questions on the work program? I think it's really standing maybe. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I think it's done. It may be. It's published. Thank you. That's for noting. Regulated general code of practice. We had training on this a couple of weeks ago. I don't know who was able to attend or not. I don't know if it was recorded. Mark, do you want to make any comments on that? Yes. Thanks chair. In order to answer to your question, it was recorded and, and I think details have been sent around to all members. So in March last year, the pensions, the pensions regulator published its new general code of practice. In November, we engaged Aon to undertake an assessment of how the fund complies with the code and their initial report is detailed in appendix A. There are five main areas of the code, as detailed in the paper, with the results of Aon's assessment detailed there as well. And whilst it might look from the headlines that the fund isn't particularly compliant with the code, with the code at the moment, for a lot of areas, in general, there's quite a lot of compliance by the fund. It's just that there are a lot of areas where work is already being done, but there's no actual policy or process document that confirms that that is the case. An example being risk management, where it's already just pointed to the committee, we have risk registers in place, but the new code requires a risk management policy, which for the fund, which there isn't, which is lacking at the moment. So that's one of the actions that we need to do. Attached as appendix B is the action plan devised by officers for the fund to achieve compliance with the code. Work will start on a module at a time over the next year and a half or so. The pensions regulator has set no time limit on compliance with the code, but as a matter of good practice, we're aiming to complete all the actions that are required as soon as we can, hopefully within no more than a couple of years, hopefully sooner than that. The first module that we will work on to achieve compliance is on governance and board structure with the aim of completing this module by the end of June. So I think the next meeting of the committee is towards the end of June, so I'll be able to provide an update on how progress is being made at that meeting. For the area on, for the module on funding and investment, it's likely we'll be utilising the investment, Hyman Robertson for the investment as investment manager side, and possibly the London CIV as well for their assistance in gaining compliance. The AON report has been shared with board members and this, this item will be a standing item on their agenda as well. And we'll update, as I said, the committee at future meetings on progress on how we get, how we're achieving compliance with the new code. I think. So, as you said, chair, there was training, the, a couple of weeks ago, and as I said earlier, I think that the slides and the recording of that presentation was sent around to members, but happy to take any questions. Yes, Councillor Sinkins. Councillor Sinkins talking about the local or the pension committee. And if it's talking about the appointments and role of the chair, then I didn't understand it because that's a political matter, political parties, that I would expect that any member of the public who is interested in our page, 188 of the pack as an exemplar. Then. Okay. Earlier on, we've been told that we didn't do very well on the governing body module. We only got one out of five. And then there are apparently 11 questions. We aren't told what the questions are, but there is then an action against an unknown question. And the actions are themselves completely incomprehensible. So, unless the other people in the room either didn't read this paper, or have an insight that I don't possess, I cannot understand how anybody could have understood this paper. And therefore, I am very, very concerned that it was, that we paid Aon to produce it in this form. It looked like a complete waste of money to me. Not that the work they did was bad, but this presentation for a local council is a disgrace. And they need to be told that. I understood it was a fix all. It's not necessarily, this wasn't necessarily tailored to pension committees. Yeah, I mean, in terms of your point, Councillor Zinken, this report was actually a simplified version of the, of a far more greater report, which, which officers were sent as well, which, which detailed it and what the actions required in the, the findings of the review in more detail. Um, I, I know your point that this report probably isn't the easiest to read. Um, but, I, I included it with the paper, um, just out of, primarily to show that the work had been undertaken, and that there, there were, um, complicated matters in, in, in more detail than what's detailed on the report that needs to be worked on. Um, because the report just kind of summarizes the, the gaps in the work that needs to be done. And I appreciate that it's perhaps not the easiest, uh, item to understand. Um, and in terms of governance structure, that primarily relates, uh, relates to committee, but does have some, uh, relevance to board members as well. A simple example, remuneration, what are they talking about? Yeah. In terms of the board, it. Well, chair, you and I are the longest serving members of, uh, the council on this committee. Uh, it, it was the case. I think prior to 20 T members of this committee were paid. I think we were paid the same rate. Um, I, I, I seem to recall that the then leader of the council decided to scrap that along with the shadow, uh, uh, leads pay. So we, we did use to the extent the chairman is paid. That's detailed, the great detail in the council's constitution. So I don't understand what this could be about. The, the, we, the members of the committee. Well, not me. Cause I wasn't. I was a member. I'm trying. Yeah. I was a member. I used to get paid until 2016, 17. I think it was two, 300 pounds per month. Extra. I think members might. So members. So that might be what members were referring to, but members are not. They correct. They're not, they're not, they're not, they're not, they don't get paid. They're not, they're not, they don't get paid. The past. It could still be an arrangement in the future, but I don't think we're advocating for. It's just suggesting that it's there. That's, that's totally correct. Council Dimitri. It's not saying you, you have to pay a board or committee members. It's that you have a policy or in place that if you need to pay, you need to pay a board or committee members. You have a policy or in place that if you need to pay, pay a, pay that pay board or committee members that that's, that's set out in a, in a paper. It's, it's the requirement of the, of the, of the new code that there is this, this policy in place for in your example. Chair, I think you'll be delighted that I read the paper and understood it. Chair, if it's okay, I'll just come in. I'm just maybe just speaking a lot more broader on the, I'm just, I'm just, I'm just, maybe just speaking a lot more broader on this. Um, so when it comes to the LGPS, um, the MXLG is responsible for setting the legislation in terms of how investments are done, how the scheme is administered generally, but the TPR has oversight or the pensions regulator of all schemes, um, in the country. So any private DB schemes, any DC schemes have to go by the TPR's rules. And there was one code. I can't remember off the top of my head that did apply to the LGPS as well, particularly to boards. And what the TPR did last year is they reviewed that and changed it. They made it into one comprehensive code. So I think the work that Aeon has undertaken, which I think was commissioned by officers is essentially to identify whether the fund is still compliant with those new changes that would have normally been applicable to, um, um, to boards previously. Um, so I think the work just says that a lot, a lot of that work is that the fund is in a good place. We're going to be breaching the TPR regulations, but it had to go under that exercise to make sure that you, you, um, you're not in breach. Um, so it is a comprehensive piece of work, but unfortunately I do know other funds have had to do the same amount of work just to assure themselves. Um, because if you breach with the TPR, you have to do self reporting. There's a whole different process involved. Um, and I think this just gives assurance to committees and members that, um, um, the, the, the fund has taken the time to do that work and has found that it is, um, in a, in a good place, uh, with regards to TPR. I would also know that in relation to, um, item nine, which is rather oddly, sorry, it's, it's item eight, but it's question nine, where it says produced from specific conflicts of interest policy, reaching about earlier as to whether our standard conflict of interest or register of interest policies is adequate fund, fund, which is something the monitoring officer may wish to consider. after doing. I was going to say the same thing. I'm, I'm, I'm wondering if somebody could, could be me, if no one else comes forward to could liaise perhaps, with the training in between meetings. I'm, I'm talking off the top of my head. I haven't thought about it before, but for one of us to perhaps liaise more closely with, with the training program, with, well, it's not training to put, it's with the code of practice, isn't it? So to just to, so that we have our perspective in there. And so perhaps there would be less of a, um, misunderstand here. Anyway, that was quite useful discussion discussion. I think maybe moved us on a little bit. more with our training. Um, can we go to the recommendations if nobody has anything else to say? Um, which is at the pension fund committee note, the summary assessment report and the action plan of the tasks required with Barnet pension fund to comply with the TPA. So that's what we've been talking about. I think. Yeah. Thank you very much. Okay. Moving rapidly on. Um, the, um, the, um, the, um, the, um, um, the, um, the, um, the, the, um, the, um, the, um, the, um, the, um, fit for the future LGPS fit for the future consultation, um, um, that came about following the, the mansion house speech last November. Um, the consultation closed in January. Um, we're still awaiting the government's response and any expected legislation following that, that consultation, uh, as detailed in the paper, there are three main areas that the government was consulting on. Uh, the main one, and perhaps the, the most headlines is a proposal for LGPS funds to transfer their investments, all their investments into one into large investment pools. Um, obviously this is not a new idea because the fund invests, um, about 60%, um, 64% of the fund already with the London CIV. Um, a potential issue on this could be the short time span to get the assets, all the assets into the pool. Um, it's been confirmed that this has to happen by the end of March next year. So effectively a year to get that done. If the legislation comes into force. Uh, another issue is the, in terms of local investment, although it's totally clear at the moment, what, what the government means by local in, in, in terms, um, of the consultation and how this will link in with having, uh, investments pulled. And for the other, um, that area and the consultation, uh, relates to governance. Um, and there is a proposal as we've already discussed again, for committee members to have the appropriate knowledge and understanding, um, um, be made mandatory, um, rather than voluntarily as, as at, as at the moment, um, perhaps on the more contentious proposals, um, is for an independent independent governance reviews. And for an independent advisor to be appointed to pension fund committees, uh, more detail would mean need to be known on how this will work in practice, who will be qualified to do the review on governance or be an advisor. Um, and who would be responsible for remunerate, remunerating these, these individuals or, or firms. Um, I know that Hyman Robinson and, uh, the London CIP sent responses to the consultation. Um, there was a limited response submitted on behalf of the committee in January, uh, um, agreed by, uh, previous chair. Um, and as I said, we're now wait, the governor's response, um, and expected legislation likely to be late spring, early summer. I don't know if. Tim would want to comment any further. Oh, I dream. Yeah. Thank you. Mark for that. Um, members, um, I'm going to be very brief on this. When the London, so when we made our response to the consultation, um, we didn't just make a response on just by us writing it. We made sure we met with every single London borough, took their views on board, drafted our response, shared it with all the section one, five ones in London, shared it with the boroughs, got their approval. And only then did we, did we make our submission. Uh, Mark is correct, uh, that we are now with this period where we're waiting for the government to give a response to that consultation. Uh, understanding is potentially in the next six or so weeks, we should hear something. And when I say we, I don't mean just the London CIV. I mean all the partner funds, including the London CIV. Um, and I think at that point, we will know where we stand and we can update the fund. And obviously the fund can update, uh, members. We can update the members as well, where we know where we're at following government's response. responsibility investment. How does that work? Yes. So there's two points to that. Uh, I think a little bit more wording would have probably helped on that bit. So, in terms of the investment strategy, it's very clear in the consultation, and it's very clear from the London CIV's point of view, that the decision on investment strategy will still remain with the committee. So the consultation has these eight different buckets, being equities, property, et cetera, et cetera. The amount that you put in those buckets, that decision, which is investment strategy, still remains with the committee. So the consultation has these eight different buckets, being equities, property, et cetera, et cetera. The amount that you put in those buckets, that decision, which is investment strategy, still remains with the committee. The advice that you take as to how you come up with those amounts, what's in the consultation is geared towards the pools giving that advice. The approach we've taken at the London CIV is we're not going to come and dictate. What we're going to do is work with the fund, work with you to understand how much you want to put in those buckets, and that's what we will do. The second point is on responsible investment policy. Now that, if anything, in the consultation is the sticky point. It's something which all the funds have raised with government. It's something that we, the London CIV have also raised with government. There's a little bit of a disjoint with the funds having the responsibility for the policy, and then the pools having to develop and deliver that. So we have raised this with government. We're awaiting their response. However, what we have done is working with the 32 boroughs is come up with a plan in which we can help deliver that, whereby we give choice to the 32 partner funds as to what element on the responsible investment framework or spectrum they sit, so we can then implement on their behalf. Say that effectively we're handing over investment to this London CIV and we're administering the collection of data and the payments of pensions, which is a world we could get to, then that doesn't quite make sense. But as you say, the issue is in the detail of what you're allowed to do. Yeah, again, this is going to come back, I guess, to the next, to the next meeting, I would support Mark, wouldn't it? So we would have an opportunity to update and think about it in the meantime and see if we want to propose anything. Other comments? Okay. Can we move to the recommendations, please? On item 12. The Pendleton Fund Committee note the sign. Sorry, council. Keep forgetting to turn that one on. Okay. Okay. To number 13 on page 199. Chair to represent. Oh, we've got exempt appendices in here. So Mark, do you want to start off and then we make exempt? The exempt appendix doesn't particularly need to be discussed unless there are any members have any issues with it. I will mention it towards the end of my update. Does anybody have any questions on the exempt papers? Because if you do, then we will have to put this to the end. If you don't, then we can just discuss the open bit of it. Yes, sorry. I'm taking the shaking of heads as no. Thank you, Chair. So this update on administration, West Yorkshire pension funds performance continues around of cases completed within the agreed KPI key performance indicators is around 90%. And this has been the case for the last few months, it has improved since it's from the middle of last year when it was around the 85% mark. We would personally like performance to be up around 95% and we've asked West Yorkshire to kind of have the aim of attaining this figure and improving that towards it over the rest of the year. Having said that though, their workloads do remain relatively high, although they are gradually reducing and they've taken a lot more staff on. So that's helped them. The number of complaints they have received remains very low as the number of independent internal dispute resolution procedures cases received. There are currently no stage one IDRP cases, which are reviewed by West Yorkshire pension fund. And there's currently one stage two case in progress, which is reviewed by myself. After the internal dispute resolution procedure, members have gone through both stages. They do have the option of going to the Pensions Ombudsman with their complaints if they're not satisfied with the outcome from the IDRP. As well as the two compensation offers mentioned in the report, we've recently offered another member compensation of £1,000, following discussions with the Pensions Ombudsman. This is for the stress and inconvenience that the members suffered over an extended period of time, where missing service was not included in a pension record and did not potentially delay her retirement. This has now been corrected and we're just waiting for the member to accept that offer. The offer is in line, as I said, with the Pension Ombudsman's decision and document that sets out the compensation levels. So the 2024 Annual Benefit Statement Exercise has finished. At the end of the process, which ended last week, 99.6% of members received their 2024 Annual Benefit Statement, which means that just 24 members did not receive a statement in that year. They're just starting on the 2025 process for Annual Benefit Statements. We expect most deferred statements to be issued in the next four to six weeks or so, and active statements get sent to members probably towards the end of May, early June time. As Anissa referred to earlier, what continues work with West Yorkshire to get the data updated and any small number of historical leavers processed. We're looking to bring this project to a close, because it's been going on pretty much since West Yorkshire Pension Fund took over the administration in 2020. So we will try and get an agreement with West Yorkshire for a final close down date of this project. But obviously that depends on getting as much data corrected as possible. We're still awaiting the dashboard is due to come in later this year and early next year. And we're still awaiting an update from West Yorkshire on that issue and how they're progressing with that sort of side of things. And we'll pass details on to the committee probably at the next meeting and the board when that's received. In terms of engagement with stakeholders to the pension fund, that's continuing. We continue to hold pension surgeries. Another training will be rolled out over the next few months to members as well. We've been asked to run a session on annual benefit statements when they're issued. So that will take place over the summer when the first statements start to be received. As requested by the committee at the last meeting, we've started to send out feedback forms to members who are taking pension surgeries and all training with the intention of improving these sessions to make them more engaging and useful to members. We updated the committee on the 45 million pound data issue at the last meeting. And that's what the exempt appendix covers. But happy to take any questions or if any members want to discuss that exempt appendix. Thank you, Mark. Councillor Zinkie. There are two things. Does that mean he's been waiting for 15 years? Unfortunately, that's the case. Yeah. Well, he's received his details now, but there was a delay in sending them back from when, pre the previous administrator's days. I can't remember. It was about 2012, 2011. I think he left. And for some reason, there's no documentation to say why that happened. But unfortunately, that was the case. Right. The second question, which is perhaps more fundamental, is in 13 members, but we don't know the majority. The majority of those 930 members are deferred members. The figures I mentioned in my presentation just now relate to active members. So there's 26 active members haven't received a statement. It could be that a statement was sent to a member, a deferred member, and was returned, not known at this address. And that goes on to their record. Their address is deleted on their pension record. So that forms part of the 930 members. But West Yorkshire Pension Fund are shortly, sometime this year, will be running a pension tracing exercise using external tracing agencies to attempt to trace all the members, the 930-odd members who there's no address for. So hopefully that figure will come down. We satisfy the regulatory requirements by sending out. But I don't really understand this, because if we know it's an incorrect address, are we saying that if we print the statement and send it in the post to an incorrect address, we've satisfied the legal requirement to issue ABSs? No, if we wouldn't send a statement, or West Yorkshire wouldn't send a statement to anyone that they knew was incorrect, they'd send it if Mr. X had an address on their record, they sent a statement to that Mr. X, but that came back, not known at this address anymore, and the member hadn't informed West Yorkshire of that address. That's when the records updated to say that the original record, the original address was correct. But it says there are 930 members where there is either an incorrect or no address held. So unless we believe that there are only 25 members where no address is held, we can't have sent out the ABSs that we printed to all of those people. Yeah, I mean, the 26 that we didn't send out active members, like people who still work for the council or other employers within the fund, West Yorkshire have the addresses for those members. The reason statements weren't sent was because the data hadn't been received from the employer that would enable a statement to be produced. So they were not actually physically sent a statement. For the majority of the 930, and there are probably about 50 or so pensioners in that 930 who don't get a statement anyway. And they are, which is another kind of story altogether, pensioners with no addresses. So the deferred members who get a statement as well, they wouldn't get a statement. If there was no address on the record, they wouldn't be sent a statement. They would have posted on a member portal for them to look at, so they could, they may well have registered, have no address on their record, but may well have registered for a member portal where they can actually, like an online banking portal, where they can see their statement on there rather than actually being to their new address, rather than being sent to their address. So it's not the case that we're sending statements to, no statements are sent out, obviously, to where there's no address held. But it's primarily that figure on 26, which is a statutory requirement, the statutory requirement is to send out statements to everyone. But so that number of 26 or 24, I think it was, they're just, they're not sent out, not because there's no address, they're sent out because there's no, they haven't got all the data to complete their statement. Sorry, Councillor, could you use the microphone, otherwise it doesn't record. I think though there's no address, by putting it up on the member portal, we fulfill the statutory obligation. That's correct. Because members in principle could access them through the portal. So we are 99.6% legally compliant, which is a huge improvement on some of the previous years. I mean, we can only do what we can, what we do. If people don't reply. I mean, members have the, deferred members have the obligation to, or to update the fund or West Yorkshire pension fund if they move address. I mean, ultimately, as I said, West Yorkshire are going to do a tracing exercise, but there's not much more they can do unless they know of a new correct address. I mean, this is the value of this scheme, isn't it? Is to make sure that we've got, it's better than it was, wasn't it? As Councillor Zinkin was saying before, it's actually better than it was. We can only work with what we've got. Okay. Any more comments, questions? Okay. Can I move to the recommendations then please on item 13, which are that the pension fund committee note the current performance levels by West Yorkshire pension fund updates on other administration and legislative. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. Yes. People. Yes. Okay. I remember this time. Thank you. Keep forgetting. I'm talking. I'm sharing. Moving on to item number 14, which also has an exempt appendix. I have questions on the exempt papers, but anything you do. In that case, we will have to, we could do the public part, but we will need to defer to exempt questions. Can we do that at the end of the meeting? We could. I think it, I think it depends, councillors, on whether your questions in the exempt session might, might mean that you. Well, I'm not sure I do. That's the point on one of them. Yes. Because there are two. Yes. I think it might be better to go into exempt session. All those up. Item. 15. 15. 15 has got an exempt appendix. So is item 16. 17 we've dealt with. And item 19 has got exempt. So all of the rest of the reports have got exempt sections. Okay. So do members want to go into exempt and then come back? Or take the exempt, take the rest of it at the end? I think we're going to have to do that, aren't we? I can't see another way around it, really. Okay. So we're going to have to move into private session. Great. So I'll give time for that to, for the recording to be switched off. Thank you, everybody. Given that conversation, can we agree the recommendations? So the recommendations after that conversation are that the Pension Fund Committee note the progress on outstanding admissions cessations and bond agreements or renewals. And that the Pension Committee approve the recommendation by the London Borough Bonnet Pensions Team in relation to the exit credit payments for city and county healthcare group health care group and tenant as detailed in appendices C and D respectively. Is that okay? Thank you. Right. Moving on. Investment and performance report. Tim, it appears to be you. Now there are also exempt appendices here on page two. All right. So all I was going to suggest on this item is there are two exempt agenda items which I think Hyman's might wish to go into detail and provide advice to members. But I did note that there were no questions particularly on those items. So I'll take the lead from you, Chair, in terms of how we manage that. But in terms of the items within the public record, so this is just to update members on the investment performance for the quarter ending 31st of December 2024. The key thing to highlight here, I think there's about maybe four items to highlight. The first one is the assets and the management, which was 1.71 billion, which represented an increase of 0.6% over the quarter. And again, I think in Hyman's report, there's a bit more of a detailed breakdown of what makes up that 0.6% and the factors associated with it. On Section 1.7 in asset allocation, just to highlight to members that this is the asset allocation as of the 31st of December 2024. Since then, there have been some investment decisions which were approved by the committee that we have implemented. And these include the nature-based solutions, the transfer to Elsie Pepper. And just to highlight that they are now reflected in this current asset allocation. But in future committee papers, you should expect to see the update coming through. So we've kind of summarized those investment movements in the rebalancing activity section, which is on item on line 1.10. In terms of investment with the pool, so there is a chart on Section 1.12, which basically highlights the journey that Barnet has been on since 2021, which essentially has increased the assets invested with the pool from around 50% to 64%, or 43% are now directly managed by the pool. Again, the decisions that were made or implemented in January have not been reflected in this, but they will be reflected in due course. And there is another item which we'll get to later in the agenda, which is making recommendations which would further along this investment pool transition. So I think at this point, this is all I did want to highlight to members. Again, I'm happy to take questions now or maybe talk to Nick if there's anything else you'd like to add to my comments. Nothing I'd like to add. I'm happy to cover some of the market background now in the public section, but any of the more detailed questions relating to investment managers, if we could save for the private part of the meeting, that would be great. Would an overview of market conditions be useful for two minutes? Would an overview of market conditions and just a brief summary of performance be useful to the committee in the public part of the meeting? Okay. Yeah, I know. I'm aware of the time. Would members like that an overview of market conditions? I would if it wasn't for the time, possibly. Tim, any further comments? Okay. Can we then move straight to the recommendations? I'm going to read them out because I think it needs to be recorded. Yeah. That the pension fund committee. I'm going to read them out because I think it needs to be recorded. Yeah. That the pension fund committee. I'm going to read them out because I think it needs to be recorded. Yeah. That the pension fund committee note the progress on decisions approved by the pension fund committee in recent meetings. That the pension fund committee note the proposed strategic asset allocation actions to align with asset pooling objectives. That the pension fund committee agree to commit 80 million to the… Sorry. Sorry. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Sorry. I'm reading out the wrong investment. Okay. Sorry about that. That the pension fund committee note the pension fund's investment performance and activity for the quarter ending 31st of December, 2024. Okay. Is that agreed? Thank you. Now we're on investment strategy. And it's Tim again to… Yes. Again, there's an exempt paper. Does anybody have questions? Sorry, Chair, just to check this is in the public? Okay. Fine. So, I will just speak to the paper on a high level. And I'm just noting that the exempt information will be just taken as read. So, this is the investment strategy paper, which provides a lot of information that we've just taken as read. So, this is the investment strategy paper, which provides an update to committee on the decisions that have been made since…in previous meetings, the committee has made decisions that have been made since…in previous meetings, the committee has made decisions that have been made approved. And we've been supporting Barnett in implementing those decisions. There are then two other elements in the public. Okay. Okay. Fine. So, I will just speak to the paper on a high level. And I'm just noting that the exempt information will be just taken as read. So, this is the investment strategy paper, which provides an update to committee on the decisions that have been made since…in previous meetings, the committee has made decisions that have been approved. And we've been supporting Barnett in implementing those decisions. There are then two other elements where there is a recommendation, which has been supported by the investment consultant. The first one is to transition the Barings High Yield Holdings into the London Save Mark. And this is one that was discussed at the January meeting, to my understanding. So, members have been briefed on that. And essentially, the change does not consider a significant change to the investment strategy of the fund. It is worth noting as well that Barnett is already invested in the LCF multi-asset credit fund. So, this will essentially be a switch in the strategic investment strategy statement, which can be implemented at very short notice. The second decision is to commit $80 million to the London Private Debt Fund 2. So, Barnett is already an investor in the London Private Debt 1. And there's a number of other private debt strategies that were made in previous years. So, this decision really has been put forward again under recommendation from the investment consultant to maintain the long-term target allocation to private credit. So, this is something that's outlined within this report. So, if I go through the report in stages. On page 1.3, the first thing is just really to update you on the status of the strategic asset allocation decisions that the committee has made previously. The first one is to transition from RAFI to the RAFI Climate Transition Index. That was completed in November of last year. There was then a decision to transition from Elgin Future World and head to the London Pepper Fund. That was also completed in January. And then the nature-based solution decision that was made in last October was also committed within… The first drawdown was made in January. And there's been several other drawdowns then. So, any other cash that's currently been held… Is there a typo? Sorry, which one, sir? It says the first capital called drawdown occurred in January 2024. Yes, that's correct. That's a typo. That wasn't something we would call down on then. Yeah, no, no, no. That's just a typo. It should be 2025. So, I'm happy to… Oh, it should be 2025. Yeah, I'm happy to correct that for the record. It should be 2025. Thank you for spotting that. So, in terms of future asset allocation actions, I've already highlighted the first two. The first one is to transition from ELSIVMAC. And this is in table two, by the way, of this report, which is to transition the entire bearings holdings to ELSIVMAC. That currently represents about 3.5 percent of asset allocation. So, effectively, you're to increase the allocation from ELSIVMAC from 3.5 to 7 percent. The second decision is to maintain a long-term strategic asset allocation of 8 percent to private debt. And again, Hymans have prepared a product assurance note, which has been included in the exempt agenda, to support this decision for members. And moving on to the proposed future strategic asset allocation actions. So, essentially, these have been discussed previously, and they do require some further action. The first one does not require any action because those are all already pooled assets. The land and save global bonds and the land and save long-duration buyer-maintained credit fund already do exist. And then the second one is to do with inside secured finance strategy. That is one that plays an important role within the portfolio, and the investment consultants are very supportive of this strategy. However, it's not currently available on the pool, which kind of leads into the conversations that the pool will be having with all partner funds in the coming quarter around transition plans as part of the future work. So, those are conversations that I know will be starting from this month and going on perhaps to June and even September to identify individual strategies such as this one. There might be discussions to be had between the land and save investment team and officers and Hymans as well to see whether they can maintain this exposure. If not, then another people would come to committee to advise on how best to manage that current exposure. The other thing I wanted to just highlight to committee, because these are initial discussions we're having, is the pooling of the property portfolio. As members may appreciate, property is one of the more challenging asset classes to pool, because the transaction fees associated with liquidating those positions can be quite expensive and not great for performance of the fund. However, again, the pool has come up with a solution, which is the indirect real estate pooling solution. And essentially, this aims to minimize that disruption. Again, the details of that have been set out in the appendix to this report. I believe it's Appendix B to this report. Essentially, what this would involve would be an engagement letter for the land and save to take on monitoring and oversight of the land and borough banks, the land and borough barnets' current investment with CBRE. In doing so, the barnets' investment would be pooled with other land and boroughs across the capital. I think there are three others who will be eligible for this offering, and that would trigger the minimum that CBRE charged for the property investment. So you'd get an initial discount just by signing that engagement letter. We have been involved in discussions with the London CIV's investment team. We've also had the consultants join us and officers join us in those meetings, and we are in favor of going down this route. But it will require an invite for the London CIV or CBRE to talk you through the detailed proposition. And that's something we envision to bring to the next meeting, at which point the fund will be asked to make a decision on whether to proceed with the allocation. So that is something that we think would be a great opportunity for the fund. But it is worth having that input from the investment teams as well. So I think those were all the remarks I wanted to add at this stage. Again, just looking to Nick if there was anything you wanted to add to supplement my comments. Thank you. Thank you, Tim. Just to add a couple of comments from me just to support some of the recommendations that Tim has discussed there. On the recommendation as outlined to remove the investment from the Bearings High Yield Fund and add it to the existing holding in the London CIV Multi-Asset Credit Fund. That was an issue discussed in detail at the January committee meeting, as Tim touched upon, where we at Hyman Robertson had provided our sort of support for that shift and provided further detail on the sort of comparability of the Bearings Fund and that at the London CIV, including the fact that there was a fee saving and a number of other benefits to occur. So just to reiterate our support of that point on the private debt commitment of £80 million, as Tim outlined again at the January meeting, we at Hyman Robertson provided detail on how we had come about, excuse me, how we had calculated an appropriate commitment amount, the £80 million figure. And as a reminder, that was based on the existing private debt mandates you have, a lot of which are maturing and starting to pay back money in large chunks and also recognised your strategic target allocation to private debt. So the £80 million figure was largely discussed in detail at the January committee meeting. And as one of the exempt papers, we've then provided our, what we call a product assurance note, effectively confirming that we believe the London CIV Private Debt 2 Fund to be a suitable investment and that to be a sound investment for the £80 million. And then finally, also on Tim's last point on the indirect real estate property solution, as Tim outlined, this is a solution that I've been aware of personally for the past five or six months. And I've had a number of conversations with the London CIV in relation to both Barnet, but also some of my other London Borough LGPS clients. And I'll be involved in any recommendation that may come to a future meeting where the committee will be provided with further detail on the implication of any change to the property investments they have and the take up of that London CIV pooling solution. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Exempt papers that relate to this. Oh, we'll have to go into exempt and then maybe finish this conversation first, yeah, and then we'll go into exempt and come back. I was wondering about 6%, was it, I wrote, I made a note here about 6% return, like I mentioned earlier. Is that, I think I read it was low. I don't know if you have any comments on that. Yes, there's one of the comments as one of the exempt papers we've commented on the target, on the target return. So if we could save the discussion for the, for the private part of the meeting, that would be appreciated. My other question was how do we compare with other London boroughs with regard to our input into the, at London CIV, the amount, perhaps. Chair, happy to take that in the exempt section, Chair, please. Thank you. Okay, in that case, we'll move into exempt. Thank you, everybody. Right. Can we now move to the recommendations on item 16, investment strategy? And again, read it out properly this time. That the Pension Fund Committee note the progress on decisions approved by the Pension Fund Committee in recent meetings. That the Pension Fund Committee note the proposed strategic asset allocation actions to align with asset pooling objectives. And lastly, that the Pension Fund Committee, that the Pension Fund Committee agree to transition the entire Bearings High Yield Fund in line with the asset pooling objectives. And lastly, that the Pension Fund Committee delegate authority to the Executive B that is exempt and the other papers have been published publicly. Okay. So does anybody have any questions on Appendix B, did you say? Yes, Chair, it's only Appendix B. Appendix B? Has anybody got any questions on that? If not, we can stay in public session. Okay. I'm going to stay in public session. Okay. I'm going to stay in public session in that case. And it's Mark's paper. So in November last year, the Department for Education put a guarantee in place to provide assurance for LGPS funds that further education bodies, such as Barnett and South Cape College, should not be treated as high-risk employers. And their statement is detailed in Appendix A. This effectively means that in the event of a closure of a further education body, any outstanding pension fund liabilities will not revert back to the fund, but will instead be met by the Department for Education. And so as a result of this guarantee coming into place, officers agreed with the fund actuary, Stephen, that we would review the employer contribution rate for the college to take effect from the first of April this year. And it's the actuary report, which is in the exempt appendix B. Following the review by the actuary, he recommended a reduction in both the contribution rate, the primary contribution rate, and the lump sum payment due over the next year from the college. The fund has a contribution review policy, which sets out the circumstances for reviewing contribution rates between actuarial evaluations. And in line with this policy and the actuarial calculations, our recommendation is that the contributions for the college are reduced as set out in paragraph 1.11. Can we then perhaps agree with the recommendation? Yes. I haven't read them out. I was going to read them out. To agree the officer's recommendation for a change of contribution rate. Thank you very much. Thank you, everybody. And I don't have anything urgent. If anybody has anything, any other business that's urgent, otherwise I would close the meeting at 9.30 per cent. Thank you very much. It was a long meeting, but thank you, everybody, officers and councillors. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much.