Transcript

Good evening and welcome to this evening's meeting. I'm Councillor Martin Bailey, Chair of the Committee. Members of the Committee are attending this meeting in person at Lambeth Town Hall. However, the members, members of the public and officers have joined us both in person and virtually. This meeting is being recorded and is being broadcast live. The recording of tonight's meeting may also be used for training and quality purposes. Whilst we hope everything runs smoothly, please be patient if we hit some challenges in this virtual environment. In the event that technical issues require the meeting to be adjourned and it cannot be restarted within a few minutes, further updates will be posted on the Council's Democracy X account, which is at LBL Democracy. For those in the room, fire exits from either door and go up the stairs to the street level and there's an accessible toilet just outside the right-hand side of the room. I will now introduce members of the committee in alphabetical order. After members and key officers have introduced themselves, I will explain how tonight's meeting will be managed. I will now start the vote call by asking members to introduce themselves starting with Councillor Ainslie. I'm Councillor Ainslie, Member of the Stratum and Senator. Lady Woodward, Pension and Representative. Sarah Cors, Councillor for Stratum Common and Vale Wood. He is Kavanagh, Councillor at West Village. Martin Taylor and Councillor at Clackham Park. Thank you and we've had apologies from Simon Hannah, Trade Union Rep and Sonia Baralek, the Staff Rep. Key officers of the committee start with Zina. Zina Cook, Corporate Director of Finance. Michael Nicolaoui, Interim Head of Treasury and Pensions. Rob Browning, Acting Assistant Director of Finance. Peter Esketh, Deputy Director of Finance. Andrew Pavlew, Principal Lawyer of Governance. Linda? Linda D'Souza, AD for Payroll and Pensions. Are there any other officers online that need to introduce themselves? No, that's... Sarah, do you want to say hello? Ah, let's get her into it. That's fine. Mirrors, that's fine. And reports, and we also have a number of experts who introduce themselves as we get to their items. Reports which are due to be debated this evening will be presented by an officer who will highlight their main issues. Members of the committee may ask questions of officers and we will then debate the reports. So item one firstly is the election of the Vice Chair. Do we have any nominations for Vice Chair? Can I nominate my seconder? Wonderful. Do you have a proposer for that nomination? Any seconder? Cool. So there's been a nomination, a seconder for Councillor Martin Tiedemann to Vice Chair. Are there any other nominations for Vice Chair's Committee? No. So, is that agreed? Wonderful. Congratulations, Councillor Tiedemann. Thank you very much. Item two. I'd ask members to declare any pecuniary interest on any items to be considered this evening. Do you have any questions? Thank you. Item three, minutes of the previous meeting. Do members agree that part one of the minutes for the 9th of October as amended represent an accurate record of discussion? Thank you. And do members agree that the minutes of the meeting 29th of January 2025 represent an accurate record of the discussion? No. I'm not going to argue with it, but my comments have not been an accurate thing. I would ask that. Actually, someone goes through the recording and actually puts it out accurately while you can go through it again. Which item? Three points. Three. The text is me, and I'm a he, not a they. Yeah. So it's maths arising. And reference. Okay, if it'd be, I think it said when there were questions on the minutes in the last meeting, I did say to members, it'd be very helpful if you've got a member to make to raise these in advance of committee meeting. Just meet for a few days, I can't raise too much to advise, can I? So that's fine. We will ask democratic services to, I actually, I do think. I can repeat my sentence. I'm slightly bored of doing minutes every meeting, but do, it's not accurate in these minutes, Peter. I suggested that some of the arguments were fallacious and that, you know, I reiterated that for the last 25, 30 years I've been in this committee, most of our decisions, I'm pleased to say, are consensual. Occasionally we have votes, but they're never contentious. The actions of committee on that meeting I found appalling and I was ashamed to be on this meeting, which I've never felt before, never felt anything. I've always been great supporter of it, but I think the behaviour of certain members of this committee were outrageous and appalling and I was ashamed to be a party to it. And I would like that to be reflected. I asked for it to be recorded. You didn't like, from my view, that that sentiment is captured within those minutes? I disagree. I disagree with you. So, can I take a vote on whether those minutes are accurate record, please? We're talking about the same minutes that unions challenged. Those were the October minutes. Thank you, Peter. Those were the October minutes, Councillor Ainslie, which we've accepted, which were amended, and we've just agreed those as correct record now. We're now looking at the January minutes on item three, where Mr. Peter has, okay, so those are not accurate. I do call a vote on those minutes. I've got one, four. Do you have any of this favour of the minutes as they currently stand? I'm aware the members weren't here, but you can. I'm going to say that in the absence of a written alternative, these reflect, to my recollection, the sentiment that was expressed there. And I would recommend them to, even those members of the committee. Obviously, if we were looking at two different versions and comparing to the tape, but I don't think it's a good use of the committee's time or officer's time to do so. So I think these reflect the sentiment. And you've also heard Peter's further explanation today, which can be further reflected. But I think we should move on. And I think the best way to do that is to agree with the minutes that we have in front of us, rather than actually discuss a meeting that we had some time ago. Thank you, Councillor Tiedemann. New members of the committee, you are able to vote on this item. I mean, are there any of those votes? So if I can restart the vote again, those who are accepting of the minutes of last meeting? So, yeah. It's on the 6th of January. My apologies. My apologies. My apologies. Yeah, so you're saying anything. Okay, so, okay. You can still vote. You can still vote. So, those voting against the minutes. One. Those abstaining. Fine. Chairs vote. The minutes accepted. Thank you very much. All right. Item 4. Venture committee work plan. So, we've been asking notes of the work programme for 24-25. Do members have any questions they wanted to fill in on the work plan, or the office ones? So, I would say, Chad, obviously this is the meeting cycle for the year that has just passed by and large. So, obviously, as today's meeting on there, as it was originally scheduled, and we'll look at it in years. Sorry, can I ask people to speak up, please? Sorry. The mic side might hear you. I can't. I was just saying we will bring an updated work programme next week. This one reflects the last cycle of meetings, including this one. So, we'll update that for the next meeting. That's all for the work programme. That's fine. Thank you. Any other member questions from the members on this? And the business plan. Item 5. Business plan tracker. Which we'll also ask to note. Did officers want to say anything to that item? Just a couple of points to note, Chairman. The actuarial services contract tender has completed, but the winning name hasn't been reused yet. It's waiting for democratic services to do its associated due diligence. And secondly, the investment management retender will be done later on this year. Are there any other of the in-progress items that we run risk of not meeting? Members, any questions on that? So noted. Item 6. The Appentious Administration Performance Report. Linda, to introduce the report, please. Thank you, Chair. So this is the quarterly performance report that's presented each quarter to the Pension Board and will be presented to the committee hereafter. And it provides a highlight of the administration performance and also provides updates and touches on areas covering the relevant quarter. So this report is in relation to the period from January to March 25. And I'll just briefly touch on a few areas before I open for any questions. So first of all, 2.2 outlines the cases that we've dealt with in this quarter and then the main performance indicators are shown in Appendix 1 as usual. And just to add from the next report onwards, we'll be splitting the performance even further to separate out quotations to actual calculations. And this is to bring it in line with the new annual report guidance that was jointly produced by the Scheme Advisory Board and I think SIPFA and. Yeah, MHCLG, I think, and then going on in 2.3 in terms of communications, it mentions the communication that was issued to deferred scheme members in relation to the McLeod remedy. And so just to go over that each quarter, I provide an update on the McLeod remedy project work that we've been working on. And as you're aware, the McLeod remedy removes the age discrimination that was judged to have arisen in public sector service pension schemes, including the LGPS where older scheme members were afforded protections when the benefit structure change in 2014. So this meant that we had to initiate a full scale projects to extend the protections to cover all members who were in the scheme as at the 1st of April 2012, regardless of their age. And so this led to a huge rectification exercise to revisit cases, you know, people who already left, who were already now pensioners, who were active members to ensure that the necessary protections were applied, were applicable. So in this quarter, we issued a notification to all deferred members to assess if they fell in within the boundaries of the remedy. And essentially, we were asking if they had other public sector pension membership. I think last quarter we issued the same notification to active members. And so I think 2.18. Yeah, I provided an update on where we are with the McLeod remedy. So as at the end of the quarter, we processed the majority of cases that were identified. It's about over 3,900 cases. And then as mentioned in 2.24 due to the success of the project, actually, there's now a very small number of cases to review. So we've moved this project into our business as usual processes. So it's been a successful project. And then also as a standing item in the report, there's an update on pensions dashboards. And I'm sure you're aware of pensions dashboard programme, but I'll just give a brief explanation since this is the first report that's gone to the committee. So pensions dashboard will enable individuals to access their pension information online in one place securely. So as a public service scheme, as a public scheme, we're required to connect to the dashboard ecosystem by the 31st of October 2025. So we'll be required to provide data of all members in our scheme who inquire about their pensions via the dashboard infrastructure. So in doing that, we've had to procure what they call an integrated service provider. It's an integration tool that will enable us to have connection to the dashboard infrastructure. So we've procured that we finalised our testing and we've carried out lots of data cleansing, etc. So we as an authority continue to be on track for connection this autumn. So that's another good news story there. And then the other bits and pieces are in relation to the process by way of IDRP, internal disputes resolution procedure, numbers of complaints and just various bits of data within appendix one in terms of use of the online member self-service system. I'll stop there as unconscious, there's lots of reports to get through. So I'll open the floor for any questions if there are any. Thanks, Linda, and the first thing I probably should have said at the start, but we do have two new members of the committee tonight who I should have welcomed also, sorry, councillors Kavanagh and Cole. Linda, could you do a quick briefing what McLeod is, please? So, as I said, McLeod is something that happened back in 2012, where there was a court case after the McLeod remedy came into place. At that time, the scheme rules changed in 2014 for the LGPS scheme. And at that time, there were protections that were allowed for older members of staff who were effectively within 10 years of retirement as at the 1st of April 2012. And so what that meant was that pension administrations had to carry out two sets of calculations based on the old regulations and based on the new regulations. And the better of the two, that was payable to the scheme member. And so I think it was people in the police and firefighters scheme actually that took out a complaint, et cetera, which went to court, which McLeod judged it, that said it's age discriminatory and it should have been applied to all scheme members, not just the older scheme members. And then it was determined some years later that yes, indeed, it was age discriminatory. And so public service schemes, not just the LGPS, you talk about police and fire teachers, so on and so forth, had to backtrack and look at all of the data scheme membership going back that far and apply the cloud remedy where it was appropriate to every scheme member, not just those who were in 10 years of retirement. So that's that's McLeod. Members, do you have any questions on secondary performance? And it was on the the only opt-out rates at the back end of appendix one. And yes, if you opt out, you are automatically re-opted again. That's right. Under automatic re-enrolment every three years, you're re-enrolled into the scheme. If you if you fall into the eligibility criteria, so there's criteria whether you're above a certain pay threshold and also depending on your age, etc. So if you are an eligible job holder, as they call it, then you are re-enrolled back into the scheme. So our automatic re-enrolment date actually fell on the 1st of April of this year. So we re-enrolled about, I'd say about 100 odd members of staff into the pension scheme, not just the LGPS into teachers scheme as well. Do we know if that that kind of opt-out rate and our general overall opt-out rate is if for Lambeth, and that might be for student others, is that higher or lower than national averages? It's very, it's fairly average. I mean, the majority of people who choose not to join the scheme are where they have casual contracts contracts. And where you have a casual contract under the LGPS regulations, you're not automatically brought into the scheme under contractual enrolment, but you do have the option to join the scheme. And so many people feel with casual contracts, they feel that they don't wish to be a member of the scheme. So we, the majority of casual workers are within the leisure services. And so we did carry out a campaign and Q&A sessions when they were to be transferred back in house to, to sort of recommend the scheme, etc. And just, just, just let them know what, what a good scheme it is. But, but you still have many people who choose not to, to join the scheme. So we're always conscious of that and trying to do work to, to improve that. Yeah, Peter. No, just a quick, I'm just looking, I wasn't actually noticed them before, but you, you've got percentage of workers in the LGPS, 80%, and then the opt-out members 24, 25 is 100, suggested there's only 800 employees. So those figures seem wrong. I think, I think it's a cumulative, it's a cumulative opt-out. It's, yeah, cumulative. So how many opts out that? Oh, these people opt out in each year? Yeah, that's how many opts out that. I think I've got confused. Okay. How many people are opting out in 24, 5 in total? Because here it looks like 100. Sorry, yeah. So, so those opted out, sorry, that, that isn't a cumulative, that, that is where people have opted out in 24, 5, 100 people. The 100 people opted out in that year? That's right. The ones that opted out in previous years, even though they're automatically re-enrolled. Not everyone is automatically re-enrolled. It's only where you're an eligible job holder. If you meet the pay threshold and the age thresholds, then you're automatically re-enrolled. But then once you're automatically re-enrolled, there are several people who opt back out again, so probably from, like I said, the automatic re-enrollment came into effect in April of this year. So probably in the following quarter you may see a high number of opt-outs because people have chosen to opt out again once they've been re-enrolled. I was surprised and sad that only 80% are in it. I thought it was, I thought we were higher than that. That's the reason why we are in it. Thank you. Thank you Peter. It would be interesting in the time to get more information about who's opted out and kind of benchmark it to the scene of it. Just out of interest, actually, I think there is a consultation paper that is going to be issued shortly from MHCLG that will have details of collating reports of opt out rates, etc. And it's at that time that there will be will be sort of judging apples and apples, so to speak. Obviously, like I've said in that note that the number of opt-outs can only be viewed in terms of Lambeth Council, that you know there are other employers in the Lambeth Fund that we don't know who chose not to be in the scheme, etc. So we're not aware of those. So I think with the MHCLG paper they're looking at encapsulating everybody, so looking at all employers in terms of how we can report on all that opt-outs so it reflects it more accurately. Thank you. Great. If there's no questions, we're asked to note the recommendations set out on page 23 of the agenda. Yes. Thank you. Is that agreed? Item seven, risk register update. I'll ask Linda to introduce again, please. Yes. Thank you, Chair. So this is the risk register report that is sent to the board at each of their meetings, but it's sent to the committee at least once, twice a year. But obviously, again, it will be sent to each committee now. So obviously, we review the risk register at before every meeting. And then on this occasion, we've made a change to the rating in PA22 as detailed in 2.5 of the report. And it's around the qualified audit opinion. So since we received a qualified audit opinion in 2023-24, there may be an increased likelihood that we'll receive a qualified audit opinion in the following year. So however, as it's stated in the report, we've put plans into place to mitigate this from happening. And I don't know if Rob or Michael want to add anything to that. Best to see if there are any specific questions about that, or do you want me to speak? Let's speak on it. I've got new members of it. Sure. Okay. So just to sort of summarise the position on 23-24, the Statement of Accounts were qualified on the basis that there were sort of two material items in the accounts that the audit auditors couldn't gain sufficient assurance on. What that effectively means is that because of the reduced time scale we had to carry out the 23-24 audit, the auditors basically ran out of time or officers ran out of time to provide the auditors with the information they needed to be able to assure themselves of those figures in the accounts. And the figures relate to sundry debtors and creditors. What we're doing is we brought in additional resources into the team to try and unwind some of the numbers that the auditors couldn't gain the assurance on. I think more than anything, what I will say is that it's flagged clear areas where we can improve our processes. So these are balances which date back 10 years in the account some have migrated from an old finance system, which is part of the problem we've encountered is understanding what some of those migrated balances are and obtaining the data behind them and being able to give the auditors the evidence they require to be able to sample those numbers. So like I say, we brought in additional resources. We now have additional time in the preparation of the 24-25 accounts to delve into those figures to unwind them a bit and give them the necessary working papers that they need to hopefully satisfy themselves as part of the 24-25 audit that all is in order. Like I say, it's very clearly highlighted some process issues that we can improve and certainly when it comes to record keeping, some of the accounting that we carry out between our finance system and the accounts, there's lots of action points there that we can take on board. So we're trying to look at it on the positive side as well despite the qualification of the accounts. On all those action points, keeping an eye on whether they're being met, but is that this committee or does that go to a different scrutiny committee? So ultimately it will, it's obviously sits within the Treasuring Pensions team as a function, carrying out the closure of the accounts. The accounts are, the pension fund have included as part of the main council accounts that they go to corporate committee. So the corporate committee will see the draft accounts in July hopefully, all being well. The audit will start around that same time in July, hopefully conclude by the end of the year. So throughout that audit process we'll have an understanding hopefully that we're on the right track in terms of resolving those actions, but certainly within Treasuring Pensions and obviously with Zena's oversight as well, we'll make sure that we're doing the right things that we need to. Thank you. And it is very normal for those accounts to also be brought to the Pension Committee, so it's not an exclusive corporate committee have the formal constitutional requirement in relation to the accounts and obviously the pension fund accounts form part of those accounts, but that doesn't prevent the pension fund accounts in draft and final coming here. And indeed, you know, the auditors can be invited to attend and you can ask questions of them directly as well, so we can certainly cover that off in that way. Thank you, Katith, perhaps again. Thank you Chair. Thank you, it's really clear to understand this report. When I was on corporate committee, one of our frustrations remember was that we would focus on red risks and they would never change and they kind of stayed there all the time. And the more interesting kind of moving ones and amber ones where we had more ability to mitigate or remedy would kind of not appear before us because there were all these red ones that were much more difficult to change. But it would be useful to have a sense from the other five, how long have they been in this, you know, are we seeing any, have we had recently even, have they recently moved into this category, are they likely, I see PAT for instance, where I think at some point to move it to green, but are these, having only been on this committee for a bit myself, like are these just long term ambers and we're adding one to it or is there movement in and out of these categories? So Linda can probably correct me if I'm wrong, but I think most of these probably linger around the amber stage longer term. So particularly when it comes to PA2, the knowledge and understanding of members, we would expect that to sort of be at the amber stage, right at the start of the administrative cycle, when we've got new members come in. And over the course of that cycle, we would reduce that risk and then reset it when everything changes again. And again, the other risks, I think Linda, if I'm correct, are pretty much stable in terms of staying around that amber. That's correct, yes. Are there any in the green that have, you know, have recently bubbled up and moved back down? I mean, is this kind of static nature the norm and we've just seen one move category? I think it is largely static, I would say. I think a lot of these risks, particularly investment risks, you know, as a long term investor, we're aware of the risks, but we would always say these things weave themselves out over time. So there are certainly mitigations that we can put in place. And it's not going to discount them. Yes, yeah. So it's about being aware of them. And we'll always, within this report, we will always flag where there has been a change to a risk rating, whether it's good or bad, we'll flag it up there. So yeah, like I say, it's mostly fairly static. And obviously there are risks that fall off. For instance, there was a risk in terms of the pension software implementation contract, making sure that that was in place for when the contract ceased. So we've got the contract now. So that risk is no longer there. It's been met. So it's a blue, if you like. So that's locked off. So so the risk register will kind of contract and expand as as we it's a working document, really. Yes, thank you. I just want to kind of it was kind of laughed off, but it is it is a reputational risk. I think that committee members do keep changing and therefore know that it's becoming increasingly a statutory requirement and enforceable, I guess, through separate rules and regulations. I think it's something that the council has to be mindful of. So I just want to flag that. The main point I wanted to talk about, though, is there's an elephant in the room, and that is when I was at the last council meeting, there was a deputation on divestment from occupied territories. It seems to have not appeared on an agenda. It's not really on this. We discussed then what a reputational risk might be. And on the P.A. 20 poor stewardship practices leading to financial and or reputational damage. There's also I think one of these other later ones. What are we going to do as a committee to address those issues raised? Can we put it urgently on an agenda item? How do we go about that process and how do we go about it quickly? And I'm not sure that the rating, the current rating that we have for it is accurate. That's helpful. Perhaps through the FRC's proposed change consultation on Stewardship Code, we are Stewardship Code signatories. And so actually what the Stewardship Code becomes might make the most sense when we look at whatever the Stewardship Code becomes, whether we want to stay signatories of what that is there are very, very few LGPS funds that are Stewardship Code members, we could look at what Stewardship means again for land birth and through that lens, which then we can then really flesh out some of those reputational risks you mentioned, Councillor Aisley, and that might be the best for us to do that. The concern about chair is that we're kicking the can down the road, which was exactly the point that the deputation from Unison was making. So I would request urgency on that, cognizant of the fact that it was raised in October. We're now in May and we're not having another meeting for another few months. So the urgency in terms of an agenda item would ask what the committee, in terms of looking more broadly at reputational risk issues the committee should be aware of or will be alive to, or a particular ask in terms of? Well, there was the legal question of whether or not, what, by continuing to be investing in and helping or investing in companies that are in occupied territories or facilitating what could very soon be deemed an illegal war, that is a significant reputational risk and possibly a financial one, which I don't think, by kicking the can down the road, we're treating with the urgency that is required. And I think that was the case that was made eloquently by the deputation back in October. And here we are kind of dragging our heels a bit. So I would stress urgency on that one. Yeah. Okay, that's helpful. And I'm aware of committee members' views on some of those investments, and those are in pooled funds, and we are engaged with the London CIV in terms of the investments of those pooled funds that we're in, which bring about these investments. So I wouldn't say we're kicking that into the grass, and we can certainly get it. We can certainly, when we invite London CIV to our next committee meeting, because we are definitely seeing the CEO of London CIV next month. In fact, we can certainly invite London CIV to the next meeting. And perhaps, if that's where the crux of your concerns of the reputational one, what reputational issues lie, then it probably makes the most sense to press that point with London CIV. But it's our investment, but there's also our complicity with the London CIV. So I'm worried about both reputational risks. So I would like, so I'm agreeing with, I would like to have a broader conversation around what stewardship, good stewardship means for the Lambeth Pension Fund, and what reputational risk issues could be brought to the fore. I want to have that, but I'm also conscious that there's a more, in your mind, a more urgent issue that actually it is, we are not the only fund in the fund that, that committees have issues with and such. Lots of London CIV is alive to this and has responses to, and is working with many London boroughs on this topic. So it makes more sense. I would, well, it makes a lot of sense, not more sense, but a lot of sense to invite London CIV to our next committee meeting and have that conversation with them. Well, all of them are sort of a cancer student. So unless we're being generous in our interpretation of the risk register, we don't write the, which is the item in front of us, we don't write it, and we don't kind of commission risk. But obviously we're asking, and it would be right to be like mindful of, and just as we have climate change here, but, you know, check the workings of the officers and, and, and auditors that do identify risks and audit them and include them in the risk register to check whether that is included. And it might be helpful to understand, you know, we don't see the full, the full list either. It doesn't, it, but I, but I don't think that it's about the risk register and, and we don't, as I say, we don't write it or commission it. We just want to make sure the risks that we see out there are reflected in the risk register more broadly. I don't think, thank you. And yes, I guess be asking officers to do that, but Peter? I have to say, I mean, I think it should be included. I mean, you say that there are many other bodies in the, in the London Sea, but I'm not sure how many of the others, other committees in it actively decided that we will continue to invest in the illegal occupation of the West Bank. For example, we've actually made a conscious decision, or this committee did not make a conscious decision to actively invest in the illegal occupation of the settlements in the West Bank. That is, in my opinion, a reputational risk and should have been doing the risk register. Mooted. Councillor Haynes? Yeah, just, just the, I mean, I'm not entirely sure that the intervention was helpful, Councillor of Teal, because I think that we are the stewards of this, of this, the direction of this pension fund. And we, we are responding to what the members brought before the committee. So, you know, I'd like to be guaranteed a place on the risk. If we cannot start back and forth with action. Yeah, my point. So, I would say that there are a couple of items on the, the key risks here. PA18, insufficient attention to environment, ESG risks. Again, you know, the, the number, the current rating is really quite low, would suggest everything's fine. I don't think it is. It's the PA20, as I've already made, but for stewardship, the, the risk of damage, reputational damage. I mean, I would also say that with, when it comes to PA19 and climate change as well, we just, I, I, I, it's in a kind of eight yellow area. Are there, are there particularly, are there particular issues that either you concern that, that, that those, that is incorrect, Councillor A&E, that officers could try to answer how that number has come to you? For example, my insurance has gone up exponential. To the funds. Costs, costs, costs of not mitigating or adapting, um, and any delays to those on climate change are causing, uh, financial draw down to, for example, insurance. But what you, from what we are invested in, Councillor A&E, are you concerned that we are not, that that risk is a bigger risk based on what we're invested in? Yeah, I'm, I, and I'm good further than that. And I'd say that engagement is not working, that it's, it would be, uh, my, uh, consideration that we would, that we move to consider divestment, because engagement has not... Divestment in what, Councillor A&E? Fossil fuels. Divesting from fossil fuels. Councillor A&E, we've received a fossil fuel report every report we've opened, but... I know, I know. But we have no direct, we have no direct investment in fossil fuels. We have indirect investment, okay, but I mean... My, my point counts, basically, if you've got specific things, if you've got what are the best and they give you concern about the risk register being inaccurate, it'd be really helpful to raise that up and take that, take that away and maybe, as opposed to perhaps the sentiment of... I'll clarify, okay. So, um, could we have the London Civ report on the, um, how... Could we question London Civ and ask them to divest, because engagement clearly... Divest from what, Councillor A&E? From fossil fuels. Because the Civ is still invested. But we, the Lambeth Pension Fund is not invested in anything that has any direct exposure, direct fossil fuel exposure. The London Civ does. That's, I can't speak to the other funds that we're not invested in, but we can, we can certainly ask, we can certainly ask the London Civ that direct fossil fuel exposure, that's, that we can do. But that's, how is that relevant to our risk register and our, our investments currently, Councillor A&E? You're right, it is, if you offered earlier on to get the Civ in to talk about... Right, yes. ...getting out of the occupied territories, okay. What I'm asking for is for us to, um, find out from our, our complicity with the London Civ, how that, because often we hear that we have a policy of engagement rather than divestment. Absolutely, engagement. I would say that, I'd say that engagement isn't really causing any behavioural change amongst, but it would be good to have a report from London Civ on the effectiveness of, um... Okay, that, yeah, and that, that's, we'll come back to that general update, possibly, because that, that is a separate thing on London Civ conversation then, going with that, because I'm, because of what I'm not hearing, Councillor A&E is how, what the funds we are invested in, in London Civ, do not have any direct responsible exposure, therefore it's not relevant to the risk register and the scoring. So we cannot, our risk register cannot talk broadly about the sentiment of society and the world's investment in climate change. Thank you for what it has. Um, are there any other points on the risk register to be wanted to draw? I'd like, I'd like to move on. Uh, I just hope that that's minuted my, my points about the, um, with drawing and, and identifying clearly our exclusion in, in occupying factories and the request to withdraw and what's happened to it. Right. Um, okay. Can I, uh, we have any further questions on this list? Thank you. Um, are we happy to agree the recommendations set out on page 35, which is to note the report and agree the, uh, proposed controls and mitigations officers have against each, uh, item. Agreed? Thank you. Uh, item eight, shall we have business plan report number 526? I'll ask Michael to introduce the report, please. Thank you chairman. Uh, just a couple of points to note, um, one is the appointment induction of the pensioner rep, uh, to the board later in the year following, um, expiry of the term. Um, I mentioned the return of the investment advisor service contract. And of course we have the 20-25 review report, distribution rates that never net FSS, uh, that needs to be signed off by March 2026. There is evaluation timeline related to the try and re-actual evaluation in the pack, uh, and this will be covered later under item 14. Michael, do members have any questions on item eight? As I was just talk about, I'm conscious there's a lot, there's a lot to do here. It's re-evaluation year. There's a lot of governance reforms posed, um, could speak about our own resourcing and what, what timeline deadline the masters in here are pretty hard and out of our control that we need to hit. Are we, are we, are we comfortable that we're adequate resource? So, you know, you probably, you're a good person to talk about that and what's in place. So, um, I think it's fair to say that, um, there is a lot to do, um, and we're really clear that, um, the timetable is, excuse me, ambitious, but, um, the resources that Rob was going to earlier, um, well, basically, um, prioritising those things that are most important, um, you referenced briefly, we've mentioned here, a governance review. Um, in fact, it's good practice for, um, pension fund committees. It's not unusual for pension fund committees to be reviewed in terms of how they operate, how effective they are, whether the support and advice they get both from officers and from their advisors is, is sort of fit for purpose and, and relevant. And, um, it feels even the agenda and what is coming, that that would be a, a sensible thing to do. It allows us to have some very clear, um, actions for you to have assurance that you are being supported in the way that you need to, that you're seeing the right information in the right way at the right time. And that we are covering both from an investment and an administrative perspective that the key things resourcing, I think is a challenge, um, not just in terms of capacity, but also, um, not the best phrase, but we are fishing from a very small pool. And actually all of the LGPS colleagues that I talk to are struggling to recruit, you know, experienced, competent, um, individuals who have the requisite knowledge and experience and desire to work in the field. Um, so we are fortunate. Um, I think we had, of being, being candid, we have had some improvement challenges and I think part of the audit qualification was a result of, uh, some of those resourcing challenges that meant that we weren't able to do as much as we would or could have done. And that was compounded by a truncated audit timeframe that meant that not only were we constrained by capacity, we also then had less time with less people. Um, I think it's fair to say under, under sort of broad leadership and Pete's leadership, the, um, the intention is for us to, um, work very hard to ensure that we minimize that risk around audit qualification, can't guarantee it obviously. Um, but also that we look fundamentally at the underlying processes and practices. Linda is leading on that from an administration perspective and there are some very, I think, um, chunky and quite challenging aspects like McLeod, et cetera, where our relative performance compared to other, um, admin teams is, is very good. I have to say, um, if you look up to the benchmarking of London, they're under the team perform very well. Um, I think in terms of the more general sort of, which is it that we need to do, the actions that are set out in here, I think are deliberately ambitious, but they aren't operational if that makes sense. So this isn't stuck with anything that we can do. Um, we believe that there is a realistic prospect of delivering on these, particularly with, um, our external advisors. But I do think, um, to use committee, there are going to be some very, uh, significant pieces of work that we will need to take you through. So there may need to be some, I think, additional, kind of, outside of the committee activity to make sure that you feel fully briefed and you're able to sort of really work with us in order to do that. I don't know if there's anything specific that you want to ask colleagues about in terms of, you know, the actuarial valuation, et cetera, the, um, you know, the investment strategy, et cetera. You may want to ask that, that sort of directly, but, you know, they are major pieces of work just are going to require a significant and substantial time from you. Thank you, Sue. And just so that those are both on the agenda in the non-public session later, but, um, but if there are questions, feel free to pose questions now. We can, we can, we can work out those in public or non-public. Any general questions that would be. You're thinking. Okay. Yeah, I suppose I kind of talked about it earlier on. It's this, um, the kind of bearing down of SIPFA and, uh, regulatory bodies on the education and knowledge of the members within and board, um, how, and I have to say, absolutely great work for getting the training going and keeping records of, of the training. I think all that's going in the right direction. We've just done a good session on actuarial, uh, valuations, which was a good pace and just kind of reminds you of what you needed to be reminded of. Um, so that, that, that's all good. I think you're right. We are, we are doing so a lot of good stuff. Um, I'm just wondering, um, say we were to have, uh, a kind of Ofsted visit from someone like SIPFA on the competence of, uh, the committee members of the committee. Well, how, how could we ensure that we are, um, um, you know, not put into special measures? Um, So I think from my perspective, one of the reasons for commissioning the review is to identify both in terms of the committee and also the support functions, if there are any gaps and what those gaps are, and then to identify and recommend based on best practice what we should be doing to close those gaps. Um, I think, um, having supported the different, um, memberships of fund committees, um, I think the, the expectation is that we provide you with the requisite, um, information. We want you to discharge your responsibilities appropriately, and training is obviously part of that, but also the way in which we present the information, what information we provide, how our external advisors engage with you, all of that would be part of that. But that, that review essentially is intended to be a bit of a, a sort of road map for being sure that if we were infected, using your phrase, that we would be in as good a position as possible to, um, yeah, to demonstrate that we're complying with the expectations and the obligations that we have. Um, and we are looking to, you know, the reason for bringing that to this committee is so that we can kick that off very quickly and bring, bring the results of that. You know, we're not talking about something that's going to take sort of months. It doesn't need to like to bring that back as quickly as possible to the committee for you to then agree the recommendations and for us to then crack on and get those actions updated. I'd just like to personally thank the, um, the staff for organising some of the online training sessions, which, um, have been really useful. Um, it's often quite easy to forget, but, uh, they, they were good to, to know that it could be quite easy to refresh, refresh your knowledge and thank you to the team for doing what else. Thank you, thank you. Steve. Uh, we do have discussed this at previous committee meetings that fit for the future consultation at England raised. There's more in there than just pooling. It is a partner about governance of the pension fund and some of that is the training requirements of committee. The team advisory board is going to produce a new set of skills and knowledge that you are going to work to look slightly different to what the board's is. And you'll have to do basically a biannual, biannual, sorry, work card to the scheme advisory board on your progress against whatever this is going to look like. We don't quite sure how it's going to look yet. We do expect, and Tony, you said that a consultation response is going to come at the end of the month. And that will feed into the review that Zena's talking about of how we set up that framework in order to make sure you're getting the training, but also how we report it in the advisory board. They're the ones who are going to partner in the committee. Pensions board, homeworks, mark to ITPR, the pensions regulator. There are a lot of slightly different people looking over our shoulders for training purposes. And I will just say as well, I think in the past we've done skills audits of both the board and committee where the members tell us where you fill the gaps are. So obviously with a framework like that help us better tailor what we need to deliver to you based on what you think you need as well. Thanks. Any questions else on that? Great. If we could agree. Item recommendations set on page 53 of the agenda, please. Item 9, draft training policy and plan 2526. Very briefly, as I've just noticed, this may change following the government's review of separate requirements. But it does include some training events throughout the year for members to consider. And the report highlights certain events for members that feel are particularly relevant. The log is also included as an appendix. And I think it really suggests some members are relevant. Yeah, and noting that I think technically half of the team might be here in the last session as well. Thank you, Michael. Do members, I mean, especially the appendix to some of the, if you have capacity, some of the in-person events and kind of conferences are very useful as well. And you'll see the majority are free for us to attend because they're sponsored by fund managers. If you can get along. Do you members have any questions on Item 9? I wanted to... Yep, go for it. Sorry, I suppose at some point, it would be good to understand sort of looking at the suggested training and events. A new member, I don't know which of those would be of most relevant. So, like at some point, maybe some sort of guidance, which of those would be relevant. I'm overwhelmed with the kind of, especially, you know, I work full time, so I'm, you know, I'm going to take two or three a year, but I get invited to two or three a month, if not more. So, so, you know, being steered is definitely very helpful. Yeah, I think as a brand new member, so the, I, I actually think Poole and Simposing 42 is too much of a brand new, but perhaps the Grove, I'm going to say, I'm looking to Tony Lenn, like the Grove is probably a good one for new. Um, so that's the end of June. The Grove gets very good reviews, obviously. It does get very good. Content, I know it happens for content as well, but it's nice, I don't know what you mean for pastries. So I wasn't expecting you to ask that question now. It's a nice bar hotel, like, you know, just in the outskirts of London. But yes, it also is good content. But yes, yeah, but that's a good, a good reflection. If that offers us to cast their minds back as well, wearing brand new, what's, what's, what's relevant. But I would say generally, DG Publishing and PLSA events are probably some of the better ones for new members to start from scratch. If it would be useful, I mean, obviously we bring to every meeting a list of suggested events coming up, but whether some sort of weekly, twice weekly briefing of forthcoming events, which we think might be relevant to the forthcoming work programme of the year or stuff which members might find particularly useful, we could, we could quite easily send something out if it would be useful. Yeah, I think not make an industry and just forward it. Yeah, I mean, just heard you got resourcing constraints, so we don't want to create yet more work for you all. But, you know, if there are any particular, you think actually by the next meeting, if we've actually been to this, that would be really helpful. Less is more. Can I just come in chair? Yes. Just a reminder that we have got the use of the local authority learning online platform. So I think there are several things there. You could do that in your own time. And for a new member, I think that's a very good place to start. Good job. Yeah. So Lola, which can I, Stephen, are new members of the logins? Is the pension regulators handbook thing still, the self learning thing, I can't remember if it's called it years ago. Is it still there? Pension regulator, the online. It is. It's still there. I mean, that's really good. And people should do that. And you can do it, fail it and do it again or whatever. And it's, failing is actually more interesting than actually getting it right. Because you think, oh, I thought I knew that and you know you didn't. So if it's still called the pension regulator. Yes. It's a trusted toolkit. Better than anything else. It's a trusted toolkit. And we, I mean, the recommendation is that we all have one or two days per month training. I know that's never going to be achieved, but that's actually what we should be aiming for. Absolutely. Yeah, I'd really like to thank officers again for all the effort that they put into since flagging this on the board a few years ago. I think there's been a heck of a lot of progress made and I really do thank officers for when an agenda item is coming up. Often they will refer to a course either online or in person, which I know it's an extra piece of work, but I think that's worked quite well for me when I was starting off. Because even although you you know something that you've passed your qualification. I mean, I forgot most of what I was retaught again tonight. So, you know, as councillors, there's a lot of stuff. Many committees we serve on and lots of stuff going on that sometimes we always need a refresher. So kind of when you're setting the agenda for each committee meeting or the work programme, as you said, Rob, it might be a good idea just to go. You know, you might want to have a look at that module again or you might want to have a refresher on something if that could be considered. Because I know officers were doing that for a bit and it was really helpful. I found it really helpful. Thank you. Great. Any other points on item nine? No. If there's nothing else, if we agree, the recommendation is set out on page 69. Is that right? Thank you. Item 10, the Investment Performance Report. For the benefit of new members, you'll notice that the agenda is split into public and non-public. We end up sometimes having very similar discussions in public and non-public. It's very important that we do have a, this paper, part of this paper to stay in public because obviously members of the active deferred and retired members of the fund may choose to be watching and want to understand how the fund is performing. So I don't want you to overthink around could ask this question now or can I ask it later. Do ask, do ask, do ask it and then officers and advisors will take a view as to whether we, you can give an answer now or a fuller answer in non-public. So don't worry about censoring yourself. So yeah, I don't want to tell you if I could ask Michael if Tony's introduce me. Several points, Tony. The first one is Adam Street New Investments. The authority provided by the committee. Previously, the fund has committed to the Adam Street European and Global Funds. These are private market funds. The European fund has already made a call on the fund. The fund basically committed to make contributions into these funds and over time, over a number of years, these funds call on that funds from the fund itself. I think it's about four and a half million pounds. So I've been invested. The commitment was only made weeks ago. It's a good start. The commitments aim to address the funds underweight position in private markets. So it aims to rebalance the fund. Best performance. Before 2024. All but one of the LCRB funds, IBC Global Equity, in the exception that performed by 140 basis points, but all but that one actually underperformed. In the quarter. No fund out of the total number of funds stood out to stream particularly badly over the quarter. Overall fund underperformed in all periods after 4-4-2024. Asset allocation as at 31st December 2024. Funds asset allocation was most notably underweight global equity, overweight, sorry, global equity in MAC and most notably underweight private equity and property. Hence the rebalancing with the items fund earlier. In base exposure about 22.3% of the fund, about 413 million was exposed to UK equities. That is a slight increase on the previous. Fossil fuel exposure that was mentioned earlier. Fossil fuel exposure remained under half percent. 50 basis points. Please note the LCIV was unable to provide updated figures due to system issues. Fossil to figures being used in that calculation. Funding level. Funding level. Funding level. Last valuation. March 2022. It was 96. 96%. The extra is estimated funding level. As at December 24. It was 125%. I've got friends here, but. Any questions? Yeah. Members. Any questions? How's the call? How does that compare with other similar local authorities? Better position to answer that. I correct me if I'm wrong. Other authorities will probably see. Positive funding figure at this stage. There will be a mix, but in general funding levels have increased since the last valuation. But we do anticipate there might be a fund or two out there where it hasn't. We just have to wait and see. I don't entirely have to get into how you. Sure investment return assumption. If someone wants to set that very conservatively, they're going to cause their liabilities to be higher. They're banking on investment returns in the future. But some funds may not see such an increase in their. Funding level simply because of you're not going to place a bigger bet on the future. As other funds. Peter. I brought up lots of times before. It's investment in private equity. I mean, we've got strategic allocation of 7.5%. It has been 5%. But we've never ever met it. Because although we might say, oh, we'll commit up to 5 million in this thing. Because of the way it trickles in, we never get there. So if we want 7.5%, we've actually got to commit 10 or 15%. And we've never ever done it. And I've repeated myself so many times. Why do we not do that? If we say we want 7.5%, that means 7.5% of our money in it. Not that in 10 years time we might have put that much in it. By which time it will be reduced. I mean, the actual allocation. I mean, we've got 7.5% as our one. We've only got 2.4% in it. And it will never be much more than that. Because as it increases, we'll start drawing back from it as well. So we're never going to reach that 7.5% on our current policies. So I would like us to sort of be looking for alternate as well. Not instead, private equity. And it would be nice if we have something at least based in Europe or the UK. I mean, it's 0.2 of 4 million of that money is actually in the UK. I know private equity is 99% of the world market. If it's in the States. But there must be something here. Either in the UK or at least European. that we could go to that would actually put some of that money. Actually back into investing in startups in the UK economy. It has to be there. Where is it? And why can't we have some of it? See? Now, I'm a broken man from this. I must have said this a thousand times. I mean, it gets boring, but we still haven't done it. Can we please? I'd like to agree with you, Peter, very heavily. Why don't we? I know, I guess. Why don't we? Who's not doing what we ask? We have asked for this time and time and time again. And these numbers consistently reflect this figure. Very. And Peter, you know this and the danger of me would be upset with me for not supporting. I expect that position will be easier in coming months post Fit for the Future, I think is through. And also once vehicles such as British Growth Partnership, the British Business Bank, their new investment vehicle that received SCA approval last week. And once that fund is open and particularly I think fund. Yes. Once that fund is open, I think that will become easier. And I think, and I expect we will be able to. If allocations to UK private equity. Because there will be vehicles that are designed for LGPS to do that better. I would just say, Chair, that besides what may have happened in the past, this increased allocation up to 7.5%. Is fairly recent as part of the new strategy. But we never reached 5. We never reached 5. And these new Adam Street funds that we've just invested or committed to are the first funds that we've committed to for several years. So we've started to try to up that allocation. I think as, as Councillor Bailey said, there's been a lot of focus on UK private equity and the opportunities that are there. The flip side of that is the risk. And how willing we are to take on some of that risk. Obviously, with the wider pooling regime, we're keen for the LCIV to do something in private equity as well. So we would hope that part of that allocation could be allocated to whatever they may come up with whenever they come up with it. But it's worth asking them at the next meeting. And I'm bringing that up. We have done before. We have. We have. This is broken record. It is. It is. And this is so broken record. We have this exact conversation. I don't know how many times we have. We have. And I, I'm also. Yourself and past chairs. No, I'm bored. I'm bored of asking London CIV. And I'm also hope, still hopeful that some of the changes that allow you to not pick one stupid one rule and do everything that would be helpful. They are absolutely aware that they need to. They are aware. Yeah. They've been aware for years. They are. And they continue to say they don't see the client demand as significant to prioritise. So also prioritise other private market solutions currently. But as I say, I think that, that, that, that, that route and via pooling should be made easier in coming months. Um, but also. Yes. But Peter, I, I do continue to push it with SIP. But also, um, yes. And I, I, I, I, that, the Adam Street. Additional allocation done under my championship. But we, we, I am trying to get that number up. I mean. But. It is. It is. Yeah. It's predominantly. When we, when they did come, we did, uh, press them on what the kind of, is there's UK exposure in there. And there is, there's a little bit, but it's not a lot. UK exposure. So we do, we do want to push them. Um. Yeah. But I will. I will. I will. I would. Yeah. Well, the awesome would probably be easier. Um, any other questions? Yes. Any other questions on, uh, investment performance? They can come back to it in private session as well. Right. Right. Okay. Uh, thank you. You take that as. Those are the green recommendations out on page one and nine. Agreed. Right. Thank you. If you move on to the general update item 11. And that's my colleague into issues, please. Thank you chair. General update 6% of the fund, uh, is invested via LCIV. Um. The savings from LCIV. About 314,000 in. This should mean slight increase in the fee savings overall in 2025. Uh, funded by financial year compared to the previous year. Um, asset pooling, um, a proposal was, um, introduced by LCIV. Um, and that received a favorable in by the government. Um, you can see in the appendices, um, that report's included. Um, uh, the other items really move really touched on. So we've got the actual evaluation in 25. That will get underway shortly. Timeline is included later on dependencies. 2023, 24 pension fund accounts, um, have been published. Again, there is a link in. Back on that, that has been touched already. Preparation of the 24, 25 accounts. That's underway. And finally, the government's, governance review of the committee. Board, uh, is to be undertaken in 2025. Again, we've touched on that. Uh, I just wanted to highlight it. Just that, that, that committee. So, uh, on the, uh, it's not, it's the. Work was kind of skimmed over. It's not, it's not a light piece of work that the government, uh, responded that they were favorable to London. So, um, you, uh, there are, like, eight pools. For the benefit of new members, there are currently eight pools. Um, and two, for two of those pools, government said that they basically don't see a way forward for those. Um, and so, uh. Which were they? Uh, Access and Brunel. Uh, Brunel was probably the more, Brunel was more surprised. Um, so, uh, it, it, it is, it's genuine actually. Uh, as much as I also like to be annoyed at London and say, but I think it is, it is commendable that, uh, the government was quite clear that not everyone will go forward and done that. So, um, London's CIV Australian progress there. I might be back to them before the government response was actually be good if we could keep the energy of innovation. Uh, not when you're forced to show it, um, basically. So that's fine. Um, on the general update, just note again to, as Michael points out, we did, uh, put on the governance review, post governance review and the pension fund accounts. Um, uh, and as I said, Zina and I are meeting with London's CIV CEO next month. Um, and we will ask when he's next coming to committee, um, as well. They usually, they do come annually. Um, I forget which one it is usually. It might be July anyway. Yeah. I can't remember when the last came, but we. Yeah. Um, but I think it's, yeah, especially half committee being. Have London's CIV come when you've been on committee last year? Yeah. Okay. They came earlier this year. Okay. So they have come in this last cycle. Okay. Fine. Good. They're probably two meetings ago. Yes. Fine. But they haven't, so actually they haven't come as a more general update. It was, it was okay. That's fine. So yes, we will make sure that July. Great. Are there any other questions on the general update or anything else that people wanted to, officers or others wanted to raise? Uh, if there's no other questions, uh, can we agree recommendations out on page 131, please? Yes. Agreed. Thank you all. So that concludes the public part of the meeting. I now move that the present public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting due to the likely disclosure of exempt information in that section, having considered the public interest test. Uh, has everyone agreed to do so? Thank you very much. We will now close the public meeting of the Pensions Committee. Uh, thank you and good night to all our viewers. Attendees, uh, online when you exit the meeting and rejoin the separate exempt meeting in the invitation. Those watching online, thank you. Bye. We're on for that, all fine. Thank you. Uh, all. Thank you very, everyone, thank you. Good night No. That's急.