Bedfordshire Local Pension Board - Thursday 23 October 2025, 4:00pm - Bedford Borough Council streaming

Bedfordshire Local Pension Board
Thursday, 23rd October 2025 at 4:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point

the local pension board.
If you held in person, it's also being live streamed.
Item one, questions from members of the council,
members of the public, I'm not aware of any.
Okay, thank you very much.
Item two, to receive any apologies for absence.
Yes, chair, John Morris, Ian Melville, and Emma.
Please apologise, I'm really late.
Thank you very much.
Move on to item three,
The minutes of the meeting with the board held on the 24th of July.
No problem. Welcome.
I'll go through these page by page.
Jowes, if there's anything you want to question or you think needs amending.
Page one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen and fourteen.
In that case, when it's taken, members are happy to agree those minutes.
Thank you. Item four, disclosure of local and or disclosure of junior interests.
Has anybody got anything that we should disclose that we have previously done so?
So item five, the Chairman's Housewives. Firstly, this is Stuart's last meeting. I have been informed.
I think eight years service, which is an excellent innings there.
Stuart is looking to retire next year and this will be his last meeting.
So I'd like to minute the board's appreciation for all the work that Stuart's done over the past eight years.
And whilst we say goodbye to Stuart, can I welcome Serena Corsa to the first meeting and hopefully we'll enjoy your time here.
Thank you very much. A number of us attended the BCPP conference on 25th, 26th of September.
I thought it was a really good conference again. And thank those who attended.
And can I say that if you put it in your diaries for probably the last week in September next year,
it's well worth attending. We have the employers conference coming up on the 27th of November,
to which everybody is invited to attend. If it's still have space in your diary that day,
please come along to Wipe Austin Lakes for an entertaining day. And the main thing happening,
of course, at the moment in the LGPS is the fit for the future, which we'll have a discussion on
in the exempt part of the agenda. So with that, I'll move on to item six,
pension fund committee and board minutes, which has been through the board minutes,
but on the pension fund committee minutes from the 16th of September.
Does anybody have any comments or questions arising from those minutes that we stay?
Now we have to note that and we'll move on to item 7 which is the 24 -25 annual internal
audit report on the pension fund. Okay thank you chair. For those that don't know me I'm
Kaye McLennan and I work here for the internal audit section of the Borough Council. We do
pension audit each year and we brought to pension
committee in September. This is the report that was taken
to that committee. To summarise the report,
in the covering report, it both take you straight to Appendix A,
doing the main pack, that's page two of Appendix A to page 58 of the patch,
and just to take to the summary of the audit work
that we've done in the year.
So we do four areas, so that's governance,
admin and payroll, contributions and investments.
And the first three areas, they all received full assurance
and pension investments, saved substantial assurance,
but with only one recommendation.
So that is an improved position
upon the last couple of years.
And then pages 60 to 67 of the pack detailed
in the work we've done in each of those areas.
And then appendix B sets out our audit recommendations.
So page 69 of the pack,
the first recommendation that's shown in there
is an old one outstanding from previous years
where we will recommend implementation
of an automated budget monitoring solution.
That's being delayed for a few different reasons.
But the primary one really is that the team,
the finance team will look into doing
much wider exercise in that area.
So we defined the chart of accounts
and the coded structure so that that was part
of a wider project that's been going on.
So that is due to be in place by the end of December.
And then the second page of Appendix B
is the only recommendation that we raised for 24, 25.
And that is complete.
That was done to do with the previous person's access
that's now being bought, they've left the organisation.
So that was the only recommendation that we raised.
So that's the conclusion of the reports.
So just take you back to the CUM report
and the second page of the CUM report,
which is page 55 of the pack
and numbers 5 .6 and 5 .7 of the report
details the plan for next year,
which is to keep the audit budget the same,
the days the same.
we don't see any need to raise that time that we spend on it upwards.
And that's the conclusion of my report. I'd just like to say thank you to the Finance team for this much improved position.
Any comments, questions?
I'd like to thank you for the report. I think it's an excellent report.
and then it shows continuing progress in the area.
I'm very pleased with the reports.
If there's no further comment or questions,
can we turn to the recommendation from the first page of item 7,
to acknowledge annual or internal audit report,
to acknowledge the progress made against previous audit recommendations,
and to note the proposed plan work was 2526.
I'm just happy with that.
Thank you.
And thank you.
Welcome to the rest of the meeting.
We move on to item 8.
Which is the draught or audit results
report from the external auditor.
Mikey, yes, yes, I was introduced
to this report, thank you, chair.
And yeah, so this is the audit results
report from the external auditors.
KPMG for the year ending for
in March, 2025.
The pension fund committee received this report
at their meeting in September
and the audit committee also received the same report
at their meeting last month.
So turning straight to the appendix A,
the audit findings are shown on page 78 of the pack.
KPMG identified two differences
between the valuation statements and investment managers
and the values in our accounts.
Both items relate to the timing difference,
sorry, the timing of information.
So more up -to -date information is provided
after the draught financial statements were finalised.
So there's two adjustments that have been identified.
There's one for £1 million,
and that's an understatement of the level three assets.
And there's an overstatement of £7 .3 million
in respect to level two assets.
So we as pension funds have chosen not to correct
for these financial statements
because they are below the materiality levels
and are in material to the accounts.
And if we were to make any changes,
it would require a significant amount of further work.
And we don't believe that that adds any further value
to the pension fund accounts and the readers of the accounts.
and that's consistent with previous ways of working.
Also noted on page 78 of the pack
and in more detail on page 93
are the number of controlled efficiencies.
The controlled efficiency is reported in 23, 24,
were all rectified in 24, 25,
and I'm pleased to report that there are no new ones
for 24, 25.
So the audit is now largely complete.
However, it can't yet be signed off
until the Borough Council's audit is complete.
And that's expected to happen in February of 2026,
which is the back, which is the legal backstop deadline.
I just also wanted to know the KPMG were also complimentary
about the work undertaken by the finance team here.
in terms of the quality of the working papers and speed of responses, which is pleasing.
I'm happy to take any questions on the report. Any comments?
Commented about the timing differences and the report on page 79 talks about level one,
two and three investments are not complete. Do not insist or not accurately recorded.
If you read that in isolation, that sounds quite bad.
But are you saying that is the risk that you've accepted
and the adjustment that you've decided not to make?
So I can't just clarify your questions, Stuart. So on page 79,
when it talks about significant risks and other audit risks,
Under other audit risks, it's saying that level one, two,
and three investments are not complete,
do not exist, or are not accurately recorded.
I think those, so those are the risks
that KPMG identified in their planning.
So those are the risks inherent in any entire fund.
So those are the, yeah, those aren't specific to, sorry,
yeah, they're not specific to the borrower account.
Both that you're writing on.
Okay, thank you.
Matt.
Just interesting in terms of the values there,
but what is considered to be the threshold
for materiality in this context?
Yeah, so I think what would have been helpful
if I'd have also included,
or you'd been presented with the audit plan.
So we did go into audit committee back in March.
I don't have the value to hand, actually.
I can dig it out, but it's in the region of 20 plus million tonnes of materiality.
Any other comments, questions?
OK, well I've been chair for this board for three years now. I reflect back to when I first started,
First, I did this on the statement of the accounts at that stage, and this is a vast improvement.
So much work has been done over the past three years, so much improvements on the quality of the accounts.
It's a really good storey. Any other comments to make?
We have to note the report. We move on to item nine, the administration report.
I'll start off by saying I've made a few presentation changes to this report.
So what I'll do is I'll go through sections of the report where I've made some changes.
So to start with, in section five, which is the performance indicators,
you might have noticed that they were different from last quarter's report and from the quarter before that.
So what we've been on is a journey to look at the way we've been reporting our performance.
The figures that are presented to you in this report in 5 .1 and 5 .2 are in line with what is required in the annual report statement accounts.
SIPPA released some guidance on that back in March 24 or April 24.
So we've done some work to configure our workflow and report on how that should be.
And that was also put into that as a late amendment to the annual report for last year as well.
As you can see, the figures might be slightly different to what you're used to seeing.
Performance has been low in a couple of areas. Mainly focusing really on one area,
which is with the team that had some sickness that was busy with the valuation back in from about April to July.
And that's had a bit of a knock on effect on the performance in those areas.
We do need to improve some of the work flow and the order of which we undertake some of the work to improve how those activities come through on statistics,
because the way they are workflow works, it's not perhaps done in the right order.
So if we could figure that it will hit the key achievement areas such as like with starters,
when we send out, when we get receiving new starter, we should send out letters straight away rather than make sure we got all the information on the record.
Then send it out. That helps achieve those targets. And that's the first table is on the areas that sit for and scheme advisory board which district court on.
The next area, next table is more about volumes of work.
And as you can see, there's quite considerable volumes
of work in the areas of new starters and applications.
And this is due to the way now a lot of scheme members
have multiple employments.
They don't just have one.
They can have up to five or six,
or we can see more than that.
So we do get awful lot of data coming through
on a monthly basis that needs to be dealt with.
and made right for the purpose of the member.
So that's why those volumes are quite significant.
So yeah, there'll be, as time goes on,
we will bring to you more statistics
based on what work we're achieving
and how quickly we're achieving it
and on a larger range of areas.
So there's so much more we could report on.
We just need to do the background work
to make sure that those figures are right
and meaningful and our workflow
is done in the most efficient way.
So there'll be a journey over coming meetings
as to how that's progressing.
So next section we'll talk through is section 5 .5,
which is an update on the projects
that we've been working on.
I just talked through the main ones,
the cloud that still has a deadline
at 31st of August, 2026.
We have picked up on some work on this area
and we're slightly working through some of that.
Unfortunately, the work that evolved in the cloud
is there's an awful lot of work that doesn't yield
in actual payments to members at the end of the day.
So it's a lot of background work that will get us
to that point, but won't be significant adjustments
in members' pensions.
So that work is ongoing.
Bit of a spoiler from the end of the report,
But we have now had approval to recruit five more posts
that will be the process of being recruited to as we speak.
So I'm expecting by January, we will have five new people
that can help us move forward with these projects
and hopefully achieve the advantage of 31st of August, 26.
All that work to be completed.
It's still high on our risk register
because it's obviously a serious piece of work,
but we would have to report a breach to the regulator if we did not complete all of that.
The next area engaged, this is the member self -service portal that we're having to
upgrade because the current portal is being decommissioned at the end of January.
Had a bit of fun with this one. We should have been in a now be in a period of testing,
and some issues with IT meant that we haven't received the product to test yet.
But a bit of pressure on us to get the testing done in times there's quite a bit of work to
make sure that it will operate in a seamless way from the old model that we had. There's also lots
of advancements we can put into it, but we're looking to achieve parity for day one, but still
we need to be quite resource and time intensive because we do only have a four week window testing.
And once again, we're staffing as it is, we won't have those five new posts in during that period.
So we have to use existing resource to make that come together.
Dashboards. Now, this is an interesting one. A bit of evolving storey on this.
It's been evolving as we speak during the day. So bear with me on this one.
I'll start with the good news. We are ready to connect to the infrastructure by the 31st of October,
of 2025 for the main scheme.
We also have to make sure that our ABC data
for scheme members is also ready and available
on the 31st of October.
We've had assurances that our standard life ABC members'
data will be visible.
That's being done through a multiple source arrangement
where standard life are responsible for connecting it
to the dashboards, but there is a link
to our main scheme benefits.
with Prudential who is our other ABC provider,
there's been some challenges in that area
with regards to the way we're uploading that data
is getting to the dashboard infrastructure through apps
as was the main option at the time
when we started this dashboard journey.
There's been some delays in the software providers
giving us the interfaces and data views
to enable us to move forward with that.
Had a bit of activity on it today.
Technically we have until the 31st of October
to get that data on.
And we've had some talk of that we will have this put
into our system in the next few days or so,
but there's only eight days left, so seven tomorrow.
So it's getting a bit tight.
We've also had some challenges getting data from Prudential.
We had to do that through a secure portal,
which had all sorts of problems with IP addresses and firewalls, various ends.
And that's been evolving during the day as well. So hopefully by the end of this meeting,
I'll have some good news in my inbox that that's worked.
So I bring this to your attention because there is a bit of a debate in the industry.
It's not just our fund, I should say. The prudential issue is a software issue,
Probably not even a prudential issue anymore.
It's largely a software supplier issue.
A lot of funds are struggling with it.
So if we don't get ABC data ready
to be available on the dashboard as well,
next week, next Friday,
we have to consider whether we want to report this
as a breach of the law to the regulator
or whether we just log it as a breach.
So the decision there in regards to materiality.
I have to refer to the breach of the law policy on what we need to do that,
but we've done an awful lot of work to try and force the issue through.
This has been like,
hiding in this of all our actions that we've been undertaking to,
but we've literally pushed as far as we can.
So we've done everything within our power to force it through,
but it's only so much we can do.
And we have engaged with LGA as well to let them know the issues.
So yes, it's a forefront of our minds at the moment.
biggest challenge but everything else is is ready there the 1st of November when
various system testing should start so we should start to see some limited activity coming through
and we have to deal with it as though it was fully live as it will be next year so
quite a bit of work and still quite a lot of unknowns with that so
the update on dashboards might have another one by the end of the meeting he knows.
Sorry, another section of the report I've added a bit more detail to is the information
in section 5 .7 regarding emitted bodies and changes of, even bodies coming to scheme and
employed academy conversions and other activities. I've given a bit more detail now as to who
the betting authorities are and what their service they're letting out and who it has
as one of the business and therefore members of the scheme
need to move from their previous employer to that employer.
Set the new information in there.
As a board, you don't have to approve or anything like that.
It's just letting you know through information.
Again, the associations are given a bit more detail
about which employers are ceasing the scheme.
And as you'll see, some of them are ceasing
and the contract has been re -elected and unsupplied.
So we've continued churn of normally schools letting out contracts and then the other supplier will win and it goes in a bit of a circle and keeps us busy that's for sure.
And other than that, I think that is it. I've already alluded to section six with staffing budget and that's all been agreed and the process of recruiting so positive news.
Any comments, questions?
I just wanted to ask the McLeod remedy is obviously a huge amount of one off work, but I'm assuming all the other funds are in similar positions.
that we're in?
Every funds kind of started in a different position.
The biggest issue I think that
membership had was the fact we weren't recording our changes from the 1st of April 2014 when the scheme changed.
It wasn't necessary then. But then the McLeod remedy came in and then it was necessary.
So there was quite a lot of work to go back and get all that information and make an update records
and put that right. Also other funds have probably had a bit more resource than
Benpertshire has had until now. So if you fund in a different position,
it's probably how I'll categorise that, but we probably are. I mean, a lot of funds last year
didn't produce a cloud compliant benefit statements and we certainly are amongst them.
So there's a lot of work still going on with pension funds, but we probably aren't
First in the queue, same will be finished, so yeah.
Probably.
Thank you.
Yeah, a lot of the changes you've made to the report we've
highlighted in red. The areas that we're missing the deadlines
is you get drawn to that.
And from what I've read, you've been diverting resources away
from that areas of more important from guessing and
So that sounds good.
I just wanted to ask about the staff.
So you said you were employed an extra five, but I think I read there's some short term contracts that are coming to an end,
which is why the full budget isn't impacted so fully next year.
So I wondered what the net increase was for the people.
In terms of FTE?
Yeah.
I'm sure we worked it out on tonnes of money but not that much.
So it is something I think it's a net increase of 2 .6 feet.
Then in turn that's the net pool that you need.
I'm probably not long term. There's a lot of things we don't know the impact of like
dashboards for example and when that kicks in at some point in 2026
We just don't know how many people are going to use it and how often they're going to use it and what workflows that will introduce.
People see all the benefits in one place, they think, right, I can retire. So that might cause lots of work.
We've got work to do in terms of converting us to a more digital work base, because a lot of our, well, we're not very digital.
Benefit statements are paper based still. We put them in the post and that's not great for security or costs.
So there's a lot of work we need to do on the digital front, which will be an investment in resource to begin with,
over the long term, should lead to some efficiencies. But the LGPS is changing all the time.
The work comes in through consultations as well. There's a couple out there at the moment that's going to cause us some more smaller scale projects similar to MacLeod.
So lots of remedy things coming out. So at this point, we just don't know what works involved.
So it's really hard to say that we've got enough for the future.
But certainly I'm keeping it under review because work is increasingly complex and the demands of the pension fund are now a lot more digital and it's a different skill set as well.
So when I first started, I just need to know about pensions. Now I need to know about all sorts of IT things that I've been learning today.
today. So yeah, it's a different skill set and things are changing all the time. So it's something we need to keep under constant review.
Thank you.
Just saying congratulations on dealing with the portfolio that you've just described and your needs and role.
You're as calm as you are. As at me as you are, I think it's great to see you.
And all the questions I'm about to ask, I'm just trying to get my head around the old report and the targets there versus the targets you're now reporting on.
Are these targets more stretching? Are they more rigorous than they were?
No, these are kind of the industry standards. We do need to, there was a lot more work I could do on this.
I just haven't had the capacity to do it in terms of setting a reg status against some of these targets as well.
They are in line with industry. And what other firms do.
But certainly I would like to see two sets of information where we have what we're achieving in the statutory deadlines that are set in the regulations and how it looks from the member experience as well.
Is it the first set of steps here? It's from the point of receipt born information rather than
the members experience, because sometimes we have to go out and get information from a scheme employer.
That can take a period of time. So whilst we say we do something in 10 days,
that is not the journey that the member has received because it's different measurement points.
And there's a lot more we could or should be doing, but it's a lot of work involved.
And there's a lot of data flowing through and a lot of measurement points that we need to get right.
And just a supplementary question. I think what we're seeing is this tension between the number of projects and the impact of that on business as usual,
which was common in a lot of organisations. But just touching on the sort of IT heavy element of what you're doing.
I just maybe it's a question of the mike, but what support do you get or expect from internal ICT departments and our youth?
There's a lot of projects that have been squeezed up into this part of the year, isn't there?
Obviously, I've seen other projects.
next time he's going to be live.
Yeah, so I mean.
Yeah, we we do have IT support.
It is challenging to.
Yeah, making roads into, you know.
And then getting the resource from IT
getting that stretched across the
organisation and yeah we make Joe and
I had regular contact with IT and
will bring these items to the fore.
because we, you know, from our perspective,
we need to prioritise these.
But yes, it has been a challenge.
Yeah.
It has been a challenge to be, you know,
to get the resources that we need to get the right,
you know, find the right people within the organisation
to be able to take forward some of these projects.
So yeah, that's a challenge.
I've got a few comments to make here.
I think the key performance indicators, very pleased to see that.
I know you're taking a good time.
And this is the fun target, as you say.
You've not got the statutory targets yet.
I know that's going to require more work, but actually we'll look a lot better against
the statutory targets won't we?
because we usually have internal targets that are stiffer than the...
Yeah, I would tell yourselves that we are going to have some breaches of the statutory target in certain areas,
particularly the ones highlighted in red there. And that's why I need to reorganise the workflow on those.
And it has been, it's impacted just one team. That's been the important thing.
And we need to increase some automation so that we're not reliant on people physically being in to churn work.
So there's so much more we can do to make those better.
But I would future breach reports may well detail some fact dated breaches once we've made sure the data is right.
But there won't be off material needs reports to the regulator, in my opinion.
Paragraph five five, I like that, I like that summary. That's really helpful.
And I think you can really well sort the staffing out.
I think that's always a real challenge.
That's a good result there.
Dashboards.
I think lots of authorities are not going to be
the deadline next Friday.
And so the question is, do we report to the regulator?
And my view would be yes,
because other authorities will be reporting
to the regulator.
the regulators think we know what this is, what's caused all this.
If we don't report, it's more like these authorities haven't reported and yet they are in breach.
So we'd more like to hear something if we don't report than if we do.
I mean, hopefully we won't need to. But if we do get to that stage, I think the safe option is to report.
I might be of that opinion, too. I know it's not just my opinion that takes us there,
But I think it would also put some pressure on software companies.
Yeah. We may well just be in time.
It's just standard, just the prudential part of the ABC is that.
Isn't ready, everything else is ready. But yeah, I might be.
Other funds have different views, but I think it's better to over report than under report.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, you know,
fingers crossed that it's 31st of October.
I mean next Friday.
We will, we will sit down and we will
work through the policy and determine
whether we need to come to that
conclusion and we will involve
industry board and committee in that.
That's it.
But great progress, thanks.
Item 10. Regulation governance please.
Thank you, Chair. So this is the usual regulation and governance updates and it covers things like
McLeod and dashboards but Jo's done a great job of summarising those so I won't go over into those
details as well. Jo referenced a couple of consultations that are probably going to have
a knock -on effect on workloads so the access and fairness consultation which appeared in a previous
report that's now closed the consultation on that so we've not heard yet from the government
about which of those proposals they're taking forward.
But I think support for the proposals
is quite generally widespread.
So expect to see a lot of those proposals
actually coming through into regulation,
she says, and there's,
so that was the access and fairness consultation.
And there's now a new consultation,
which is called the access and protections consultation,
which is kind of continuing along the same line
of improving outcomes for members.
So this is on page 114 of the pack.
So paragraph 516 and 517 sets out some of the items
that are in that new consultation,
which includes proposals affecting the new minimum pension
age and how that works with the local government pension
scheme specifically.
Councillors being allowed to pay into the local pension
scheme again, they were previously,
and then they got removed.
and now they're talking about they're coming back in again. Academy directives which is around
academies having options to move where their head office is, so they might want to move
between pension funds and also new fare deal which is looking at protections for members when they
get outsourced which potentially have quite an impact on the way we run our admissions process
at the moment because as Jo highlighted there's a lot of ignition agreements and outsourcing
contracts, it goes on and so that will have an impact on that. So we'll wait to see
what happens about that, the consultation closes on the 22nd December. Otherwise the only other item
I was just going to mention the breaches log in terms of late payments of contributions. So
So in the period to 30th September,
there were a couple of late contribution payments
in August, 2025.
However, these seem to be an isolated incidents.
They've not had any previous incidents in the last year.
And the issue appears to have been temporary
due to new staff, I believe,
not understanding the full process
to get a payment over to us.
So hopefully those issues will be resolved
and we'll carry on monitoring it as always.
and payment was made on time subsequently.
So hopefully that will be a recurring issue.
So that's all I was going to add.
So I'm happy to take any questions.
Yeah, when might members be allowed to re -tune the scheme?
Is there a date in reference by government?
No, I don't think so.
It was interesting.
The announcement was made
and then the consultation very soon afterwards.
So I imagine that they'll probably be quite high.
When did vendors stop being eligible to be in?
Yeah, 2014 was that recently?
Yeah, so already, you know, it's only been a year or so.
Yeah, they were tracking.
Yeah, and they were sort of phased out depending on when their end of office was so it kind of wasn't a set date for them.
There was kind of an end of their term within term that came out the scheme.
So it hasn't actually been that long and before they had to protect it,
like it wasn't quite the final salary scheme, but it was a different scheme to the Career Average Scheme.
So I think the plan is for them to go into the new Career Average Scheme with some tweaks.
So I'm not quite sure how different their scheme arrangements will be from the main scheme arrangements.
And we will be running, you know, two different schemes.
It all sounds very odd because, you know, presumably it was good reason to
bar members from being members as part of the scheme and those reasons get still.
Just different personnel or something. I don't think it was any more scientific than a desire
to save money because in Wales, man, there is a need to save money unless now than it was then.
I was expecting not. It's probably not a man's return.
Okay.
Okay, thanks.
Other comments, questions?
And Richard.
You mentioned in doing
habitat status consultation response.
I'm just thinking about the rest of the workload
that everybody's got on other than the other projects.
So are we expecting any,
if there's any changes in this forthcoming budget,
are they likely to appear to us as consultation exercises or are they likely to be pushed through
for the next tax year or is there any precedent for, I'm just wondering whether we're sort of
facing another tsunami of things that might just appear in the budget that we've got to implement
quickly? Yes I'm not sure, it depends on what it is and because there have been instances where
they've announced things in the budget and they've wanted to put them through the start of the next
So things like when they start taking the lifetime allowance out and things like that, those things happened quite quickly.
So there is always the potential for something to be announced in the budget.
So but you never quite know because always a lot of speculation around budget budgets as well.
So there'll be items in the news that people think are going to be things that are going to be in the budget and then they don't materialise.
So it's always a challenge to know exactly what's going to come and what effect that's going to have, I would say.
But if that is the case, then that's clearly going to have impacts on other pieces of work.
Yes. Yeah. And I think we will need to. We will need to consider that when we get to that point.
I don't think we can do anything in the interim period.
We are adding results into the team quite well and we will keep that under review, as Joe said.
We're going through a business planning workshop with the board and the committee.
I think that's gone to everybody now as kind of your advice in January.
So we've got some internal workshops as well. So these are all things that we will think about.
And bring to that workshop.
So I've not issued an invite yet.
It's the 15th of January, we're going to put that in for in case you want to make an entire
bar, but I'll get the invite out to you shortly. Just wait for the moon booking to be there.
If the Chancellor announces changes to tax rates, they're probably going to come in next April.
If it's something change of policy, so for example, the announcement last in the budget,
that's autumn to bring pensions into the scope of IHT. They then went out to consultation on that
and that's to come in from April 27. So quite a long lead -in for that. So I think if it's a
policy change likely to be consultation and a lead -in, but if it's straight change to tax rates then
they'll come in straight away. It doesn't stop them doing anything else of course.
I guess there's a difference in the scale of work to implement something that's probably a software setting,
trivially, about tax rates as opposed to a policy change, which is quite significant,
getting back on quite a lot of processes and obviously I'm sure a lot more.
Any other comments?
question.
My earlier statement was that the big issue is fit for the future. I think it stands, but
this report shows the scale and the breadth of other things that are happening and are going
to impact on the funds and the workload. That's a very busy time. Thanks.
partners, IT 11 risk register.
Your name? Yep, that's me. Thank you,
chair and so the report highlights
where the register has been updated
and it's also on the actual register
itself is marked in grey and
changes that have been made.
So we have increased the
risk levels in some areas.
In relation to some things
we've been discussing,
so the importance of retaining key staff
when we've got major projects going on
and also looking at resourcing.
So the levels of risk are likely to change
as these projects progress and resources are reallocated
and sort of matched accordingly to the processes.
So you'll see those reflected in the changes to the register.
Other than that, I wasn't going to add further comments.
I'm happy to take any questions.
Comments, questions?
And there's hardly any changes, hard to note the report.
Thank you.
As in 2012.
General Code of Practise.
So this is the report on the assessment of the funds practises against the pensions regulated General Code of Practise.
So it builds on the gap analysis,
which was undertaken by Barnet Bodding last year
after the new code had been issued.
So I've included at appendix A a summary
of the modules of the code,
kind of condensed it as much as possible.
So along with the current assessment and the outlook,
what we think is coming down the line.
So as we are expecting some new legislation and guidance
as a result of the future consultation,
the good governance recommendations within that.
So the appendix does note in the outlook
that a number of those areas that the code covers
will be evolving.
So we need to have that in mind for where we measure
we're up to and also the work that's coming down the line.
But I'm happy to take any questions on that.
Any comments, questions?
Just happy to know that report.
Involves right to the 13 post -work programme.
This again.
Yeah, thank you, Chair.
I wasn't going to add anything in addition to the reports,
but I'm happy to take any questions.
Any comments, questions?
Again, members happy to note the report.
Item 14, the Miners Principles Review.
Thank you, Chair.
So this is a report on the Miners Principles
and how the pension fund is complying
with the six Miners Principles
and asset outing SIPPA guidance.
And so Appendix B sets out the funds current compliance
to minor's principles and recent and future actions which will ensure continued compliance.
So actions include the work that's currently being undertaken as part of the 2025 valuation
and the training sessions that have been held during the year, for example the sessions run
by Bawditch Coast over the summer. So those actions are noted within the
appendix and the review of the funding strategy statement which is referred to a few times is
covered in more detail under item 18 of the agenda today.
Happy to take any questions.
Any comments, questions?
I think it's not long since we dealt with this,
but we've brought this item forward so the board looks and reviews it
before it goes to the pension fund committee, which is the recommended put practise.
I'm just happy to note that that was taken.
Item 15 business plan update.
Thank you, Chair.
This is another item that we've brought in line with reviewing it before.
So the reports includes an update on the fund's progress against the work plan and objectives
set out in the business plan.
So I've noted in the reports and we've been hearing already about the challenges meeting
all of the work plan objectives due to a number of major projects all happening at the same
time, which is putting the strain on resources and some of the items that are work are ongoing.
So I've already mentioned the collaborative session on business plans being planned for
15th of January, so I'll send the invite out for that. So all committee and board members are
invited to attend to meet with officers to discuss the business plan for 2026 onwards.
And we'll also be looking at the risk register as well to, you know, whether that dovetails into
the risks that might be associated with meeting our objectives.
Let's take any questions.
I might ask questions.
I'm just happy to know the report.
You've had some 16 investment strategy reviews.
Mike.
Thank you, Ian.
So this report sets out the annual review
of the investment strategy statement.
So we undertake a light touch review annually
and then undertake a full review every three years
in mind with the triennial valuation.
And so we'll be undertaking that for review,
well, we are in the process of undertaking
that for review now, and then we'll bring it updated ISS,
probably towards the early part of 2026.
And in respect to this update
to the investment strategy statement,
the main updates are around the strategic asset allocation,
which is shown on table two of an appendix A.
and that has been updated following decision
by the Pinching Fund Committee.
Other changes in the ISS include updates to the benchmark
and target asset allocations at table three.
Narrative updates in respect to the fund's currency
as a pinching solution that was implemented
in April of this year.
Inclusion of the fund's investment beliefs
and responsible investment beliefs
that were agreed at the June pension fund committee meeting and a number of other minor
updates to wording and references. I'm happy to take any questions in the report.
Page 15 of the report, I think it's 200 more in the report, it just has 3 .13 talks about the
CPP and this thing, the 11 equal share of all this
and they've missed a lot of signs.
Is it too soon?
Is it too soon in this report to,
because it's extended now, there are more funds on that.
So yeah, then this recovery is drafted
and went to pension fund committee before the decision
around the addition of new partner funds to the partnership.
So what we will do is we will bring,
But when we review this again,
as I said in the early part of 2026,
as part of the full in depth review,
as part of the valuation,
we will bring an updated version of that
and include a new part of the funds here.
Any other comments, question?
Okay, happy to note that report.
Item 17. Consider to pass a resolution under section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972
to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting on the grounds of consideration
of following items of business as likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information
as defined in paragraph 3 of part 1 of schedule 12A to the Act. Members happy to move that
resolution