Agenda item

The Pension Fund Committee has agreed to review their Risk Register on a quarterly basis. The item will allow the Board to review the register as presented to the June committee meeting; to review any progress in terms of mitigating actions and to consider any risks not properly reflected in the register.

A copy of the Risk Register report to the June Pension Fund Committee is attached at LPB7.

The Board had before them a copy of the Pension Fund Committee’s Risk Register (LPB7) and covering report which had been considered by the Committee at its June meeting. Sean Collins introduced it stating that the Committee had been engaged in seeking greater clarity on risk and had agreed to welcome the new format of the risk register and to review it at each quarterly meeting.

With regard to Risk 10 – ‘Insufficient resources to deliver responsibilities – LGPS and FSPS’ - ‘Currently recruiting new staff but this could be impacted by move from Unipart House’ Mr Collins reported that the Pensions Manager had received a good response to job advertisements; and the Committee had instructed Property officers to look into possible venues for the staff when Unipart House was vacated. It was hoped then that the risk would be mitigated by the nest meeting of the Committee. Steven Davis suggested that officers look into any vacant City Council property/space.

Sean Collins directed the Board’s attention to Risk 17 – ‘Significant change in liability profile or cash flow as a consequence of structural changes’ – stating that one of the Pools which was considered smaller than the Government guidance, had indicated that they could try to bring the Pool up to the right size by including all the academies for the country. This would impact negatively on the cash flow of the Oxfordshire Fund as well as the size of the Brunel pool and if raised formally would have to be opposed.

With regard to Risk 8 – ‘Inaccurate or out of date pension liability data – LGPS and FSPS’ – a Board member asked if the Committee was beginning to see any mitigation as a result of an increased attention being paid to it. Sean Collins reported that it was too early to form a view, but that the position would be much clearer after the review of the information provided for the 2016 valuation. This was currently underway.

Sean Collins agreed that, in light of all the complex changes to staffing structures, the Pensions Administration Strategy now needed to be developed in order to be fit for the future. This would require more attention to be paid to training and communication. In addition, there was a need to take a fresh look at the quality of the information and data received from the big employers.

The Board AGREED to request the officers to place an item on the Agenda for the next meeting of the Board to receive information on how the Administration Strategy was developed; how officers engaged with employers about matters such as staff projections; and asking if there were structures in place to ensure that OCC were informed of any major issues which could have an impact on the Pension Fund in the future, such as plans to outsource staff, or whether there was any new legislation on the horizon that may affect their members. The report should also address the question should OCC employ a Programme Manager to manage this.