Agenda item

The Board is invited to consider the response to the 10 recommendations made within the Independent Governance Review undertaken by Hymans Robertson, as considered by the Pension Fund Committee on 10 September 2021.

The Board was invited to consider the response to the 10 recommendations made within the Independent Governance Review undertaken by Hymans Robertson, as considered by the Pension Fund Committee on 10 September 2021.

The Board was informed that one of the recommendations was in relation to the Constitution of the Committee which was to ensure wider representation of the scheme employers within the Fund, and this was taken forward at the March meeting before the May 2021 elections.

Reference was made to the development of a fund specific conflicts of interest policy. The main issue behind this recommendation was the potential conflicts of interest between the County Council’s role as the Administering Authority and its role as a scheme employer, including the potential conflict of interest for County Council officers, in particular the Section 151 Officer. There was also a concern about the potential conflict of interest between the role of the County Council as a Shareholder of Brunel and its client role.

The Board was informed that this recommendation was adopted by the Pension Fund Committee so that this conflict of interest policy applied to both Committee and Board Members.

Discussion took place on this recommendation and the Board asked whether its Members should be registering their interests in the register of interests which Councillors sign. This would be investigated.

Reference was made to whether the conflicts of interest policy covered political pressures/ philosophies or was it just financial. It was agreed that this would be raised with the Pension Fund Committee. The Board accepted that there was no conflict arising from political and philosophical positions, but did want to add the conflict between their employer’s position and those of employers as a whole.

In relation to the recommendation on reviewing the Terms of Reference for the Pension Fund Committee and Pension Board, to clarify roles and improve communication between the two bodies. The Board was informed that communication had been improved with both bodies receiving draft minutes of each other’s meetings, and the Chair of the Pension Fund Committee attending meetings of the Board, with Board Members invited to observe Pension Fund Committee meetings.

Another recommendation related to the establishment of a Governance Officer role to support the Service Manager (Pensions) and service delivery of the Fund. This would reduce key person risk and support the findings of the Good Governance Project. The Pension Fund Committee agreed this recommendation, and this was supported by the Board.

In relation to the recommendation relating to reviewing the agenda content for the Pension Fund Committee and Pension Board, the Board was informed that it was the aim of officers to ensure that reports which were presented to future meetings of the Pension Fund Committee were tied into the strategic roles and responsibilities.

The aim was to reduce reports which were simply just for noting and the recommendations should reflect the regulatory roles and responsibilities of the Committee. Recommendations should be clear to ensure better focus on debate.

The Chair asked if a similar exercise would be undertaken for the Local Pension Board and the Service Manager (Pensions) reminded the Board that its role was to support and scrutinise the decisions of the Pension Fund Committee and to ensure it was meetings its roles and responsibilities.

In respect of the recommendation to hold a separate meeting of the Committee to discuss the annual business plan and budget, the Board asked that consideration be given to inviting Board Members to this meeting to attend as a “Critical Friend” to the Committee. It was agreed that a Special Board meeting should also take place to ensure the Board has input into the process.

The comments on the recommendation relating to reviewing the process for risk review at the Fund were noted.

A key recommendation was regarding a mandatory training policy including an escalation process where members of the Committee and/or Board failed to engage appropriately. The Board had expressed concern that the statutory requirement that all Board members must acquire the necessary skills and knowledge to sit on the Board, did not apply to Pension Fund Committee Members.

The Board was informed that there needed to be a more robust process around

the policy to ensure compliance and assess the overall effectiveness of the

training. It was proposed that annual knowledge assessment be undertaken of all Members of the Committee and Board and then the overall skills and knowledge of both bodies could be assessed on an annual basis.

The Board supported the recommendations on the Pension Fund Committee and asked that the Board’s comments be communicated to the Committee.