Pension Board - Monday 15 September 2025, 10:00am - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Pension Board
Monday, 15th September 2025 at 10:00am 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 

Welcome to our Webcast Player.

The webcast should start automatically for you. 

Webcast cameras are not operated by camerapersons; they are automated and linked to speaker microphone units. The aim is to provide viewers with a reasonable visual and audio record of proceedings of meetings held in public.

Note: If your webcast link appears not to be working, please return to the Webcast Home Page and try again, or use the help email address to contact us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

Welcome to the pensions board meeting and my name is John Jones the independent chair of the board and I will be chairing
this meeting today
The meeting is being webcast live on the council's website. I
Will now ask board members present to introduce themselves and please can you also state any?
declarations of interest that you may have in agenda items and the nature of that interest
So first of all David
Thank you.
and John.
Okay, thanks John and Dwayne.
Morning everyone. My name is Dwayne Brown. I'm a senior officer, employer representative.
I have no declaration of interest.
Thank you.
And online we've got Anika.
Good morning everyone.
My name is Anika Oronke.
I represent the employee.
And I have no interest to declare.
I'm sorry.
Thanks.
Over to you Annette.
Good morning.
Annette McKenna representing Admitted Bodies Employers and I have nothing to declare.
okay thank you everyone and moving on then for Hana are there any apologies
for absence today and we've just had apologies from Abdul Razaq Qasim okay
thank you or no note that he did write to me so item two is declarations of
Interest that we've just covered
Item three are the minutes of the last meeting. I'll just pause for a second the one for the counsellor
Morning council, we just introduced ourselves
So rather than carry on would you just like to introduce yourself and say if you've got any declarations of interest. Thanks
Please come to the podium.
Morning chair and the board. Apologies for the slight delay.
My name is
Councillor from the west. I have nothing to declare.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor.
So item 3 of the unrestricted minutes of our last meeting.
So on pay the first pages is played nine of the pack
Page turning over page 10
Page 11
We've got one item of matters arising there and are saying about the training budget has that moved forward since we last spoke
Paul I think there's a paper here to discuss training particularly
And and the plan in effect so I think I'm hoping chair that we can pick it up as part of that paper
But I know Paul's been looking into that say yeah, that's fine
Okay, thank you
So it's page 11 page 12
Page 13
14
There was no other action there, but we've moved on since that date page 15 page 16
page 17
We picked up there about inviting Colin to a future meeting and I was going to suggest that given the sieve are coming to the
November meeting that would be an opportunity to invite
Colin along if he's if he's free then so everyone's comfortable with that
and then page 18
And that's it can we agree these minutes please signal yeah, right, thank you
So that takes us to item
Six points
Oh submissions from yes emissions right there's there's a couple of points to make here submissions from
members I had I had a letter from a
fund member in connexion with investments policy and in the Middle East and I've replied to her and also
I
Swarded it on to Paul to reply to it's obviously a matter for the committee given that that's their responsibilities
That's one. I also had a letter from
The Department for Education about an admitted body and I think we'll cover that later on in the agenda as well
Item five is submissions from the pensions committee. I don't think there's anything there. Thank you
So item 6 .1 is the pensions admin report and there's quite a lot of detail in here. I
Know Paul you've been dealing with this and it's follows the same format as before
Can we just pick up the highlights perhaps?
As we go through
Can you talk about page 11 please there's the tables there on the backlogs, which I think
It looks to me as though the backlogs have increased a bit since June or April, I should
say.
So if there's any issues there you want to draw to our attention, please.
Thank you, Chair.
I think we've had a very busy couple of quarters, not least because of the additional workload
on top of everything else.
So the data before you sort of reflects all of that, but I'm just going to ask Raju to just pick up on the key ones.
Thank you.
Thanks. Morning, Raju.
Morning, everyone.
Firstly, I just wanted to highlight that this quarter, the first quarter is quite busy with ProjectWorks.
Especially April we had auto enrollment which obviously was a very very busy
period. Lot of queries so staff were sort of minding the auto enrollment queries
and then we had the valuation as well which we had to submit which has been
submitted so there were a lot of queries to resolve that as well and then we had
annual benefit statement and also the Lumeira project as well, which is almost coming to
its end from our side. So that is probably one of the key reasons why we sort of not
struggled I would say, but we've maintained the workload compared to the previous quarter.
If you see the case completion is almost similar to last quarter. So we've done that on top
of these additional projects and since last time we had that meeting we've not recruited
anyone. So in terms of staff we're still down by three posts. In order to tackle that we've
currently agreed on a trainee role, we've managed to design the job description for
that. We've had a conversation with the trainee team, so that's part of our plan to sort of
tackle those issues because currently what's happening is there's a shortage of pensions
administrators out there. So we're taking a different approach in terms of
recruiting so we're trying to get people on a trainee level, train them the right
way in terms of providing courses for them, pensions courses, so that they sort of
pick up the pensions knowledge from the get -go. So that's how we're going to
tackle the workload over the next few months. I know it's not going to be a
quick result but that is the plan that in the long term we want to be in a
where we're responding to members within five to ten working days.
So that's the aim, long term objective.
Thanks.
Can I open this up for questions?
Anyone got any points they want to raise?
Yeah, David.
Good.
.
I'm going to go to the next one.
Anybody have to pick that up?
Excuse me, chair.
Yeah.
Annette.
Can you hear me okay?
Yeah, can you hear me okay?
Yes, I can.
Yeah, I think there's something, whenever David speaks, I can't hear anything.
Yeah, same here.
It's in here.
But everyone else I can.
Apologies chair.
Fajana usually rescues me.
There were three questions Annette.
One is the current vacancies.
Secondly, what does frozen mean?
And thirdly, the amount of due diligence going into the category of undecided.
How do we reach out?
Apologies Annette.
No, no, thank you.
Who is going to pick that up?
Thank you.
The first question in terms of what is frozen.
Frozen is basically members who have less than two years service and are entitled to
a refund.
So what happens is in this case we obviously write to the members straightaway asking them
to claim their refund.
But not all members claim their money back because they have that hope of joining the
pension scheme again and then having it transferred.
So that's what frozen refund is.
In terms of there's so much we can do asking them to claim their money back.
I mean, we write to them several times, we send them reminders, but the only reason I
can think of them not claiming them back is the thought of them rejoining the pension
scheme.
The second question in terms of undecided, as you can imagine, is the end of the year.
So all of a sudden you have all those levers that they probably missed out, employers missed out previously, they get submitted.
Within that there are some where we've written to the members, so levers, undecided levers could be frozen refund,
it could be someone who's above the age of 55 so they can claim their pension, so we'll write to them asking them to claim their pension if they wish to.
In terms of the database system, they will still be recorded as undecided until we've reached their final claim.
Or if they say for example in a few months time they've not claimed their benefits, then we'll set the record to their status.
So yes, the numbers have gone up, but that's because end of tax year, that's what usually happens.
and you get all the submission that were missed out previously gets picked up through the end of year return.
What was the final question?
Vacancies.
Yeah, vacancies. We've currently got three vacancies.
So two pension administrators who are the processes and that's where we're sort of struggling
because we've not got enough processes to actually process the case.
And then we've got pensions team leaders post vacant as well.
So those are the three that you can choose.
Thanks, Arsan.
You wanted to come in?
Yeah.
Yeah, just to supplement the point
Raju's made around staffing there.
And I know, David, you've picked it up.
And what we can do is, on an ongoing basis at the board,
provide an update in regards to the staffing and the situation.
So I think, Raju, you touched on the trainee post.
I do acknowledge we need the right people in
with the right skill set.
So it's now in the trainee.
I think we've discussed about going out
to recruit for the pension admin posts.
So that will be part of the process as well.
So it's not like we're exploring,
we're not exploring the market,
we will be exploring the market.
There's some really good people in the team as well.
So we're conscious about this.
An example would be Raju who was a team leader
who's become the pension admin manager
and we're conscious sometimes that shift in staff
creates roles or vacancies.
People leave their posts and there's a vacancy there.
So that's part of one of the vacancies in the team.
So there's a bit of succession planning
that takes place there as well where occasionally we will end up with vacancies while we look
to backfill. And I think we've got an element of that in the team. So we are actively looking
on top of the trainee to go and recruit to these pension admin posts to support with
the workload. But we will provide an update on an ongoing basis as per David's request.
Thanks. John, you want to come in?
Yeah, no, it's the recruitment backlog. In the past, it's been suggested that Terehamlet's
The recruitment process is a bit slow because of trying to get people assimilated,
any vacancies without risk of redundancy, which we fully support.
And also as a former terror hamlets officer and trade union rep,
I know the process can be slow.
Is that the reason?
I mean, I'm trying to meet up with the unison branch for a catch -up.
I mean, if there is a problem with the assimilation structure,
I can maybe have a word with the branch secretary.
I mean, is that the problem or is it not a problem anymore?
Chair, can I just come in?
I think, as Raju alluded to previously,
there is a shortage of pension admin people
across the board.
I mean, all LGPS authorities are looking for the same,
you know, staff from a very small and shrinking pool of people. So hence we are
looking to do something different which is to bring in, you know, people, you know,
like trainees and sort of train them up and then hopefully put them on a career
path and as a way of getting around this problem because just trying to go out
and find people that are raring to go trained,
LGPS pensions, especially is very difficult.
When you do find them, they are very expensive.
And so you've got to balance,
budgets against availability.
But Paul, I'm asking you a question.
Is there a blockage for the internal processes?
If there's not, that's fine.
To answer your point, I'm aware of other pension departments in -house still in London who don't
seem to have the same problem that Tam, it always seems to have with recruiting pension
staff.
I'm not saying it's easy, but this is something the board has been trying to grapple with
support with over for many, many years and it just seems to be around in circles.
So it's not a problem with the internal process?
No, John, to answer that question specifically, I know there's a process we need to go through
absolutely every recruitment, but I don't think that's a hindrance to us.
I think it's about actively, and I do agree with Paul's point now, I think getting the
right people in, but we are pushing that actively.
But I don't think there's any hindrance there, John, immediately, no.
There's a process we go through, but that doesn't cause us issues.
Right, well, thanks for that.
Well incorporating that data in future reports will help we can obviously pick pick the issues upper at each meeting. Yeah
Thanks for your comments
On page 14. I had I mean this is perhaps a fairly small point but
It says cells highlighting a red about their targets dates changed to the correct number of days
But it was this just what was the issue here?
Yeah, so in the system in the background, he actually has your target days to complete
But these cases for some reason doesn't pick up the target date
So we've raised it with hey as to why it's not picking up as a result
These stats are showing quite low because currently saying zero days as the work
So as soon as it's locked on it should have been completed. So the stats aren't okay a fair reflection
But yeah, we've raised it with
Tables, okay. Oh, it's a systems. Yes
It's got it, but for some reason it's not picking out
Okay, right. Thank you
The other I'm just sort of working through these page page 16
Is there a the work with the data cleanse? Is there a sort of timetable project timetable here? I mean I
Welcome the update but is there any sort of end date?
timetable or project plan or anything that supports that
Yes, Jay. We are currently targeting
the end of this
calendar year and
Because we are basically
tying up loose ends now and then just making sure that all the
Sampling that has been done
to cheque
and ensure that there aren't blind spots for us in terms of the constellations and things
matching. So we're just going through that process, especially around the GMPs. And so
once we've completed that, because we've received vast sampling files for us to go through and
and then respond back to Lumira, which we've been doing successfully.
So once all of that is done and they've reported back to us as to their final
findings, then we can move rapidly to then conclude the process.
So we are coming very close to finishing it.
Thank you. Arsen, you want to come in?
Thanks, Sean.
Yes, so that's the latest position we had
on the timetable from Lumira, end of the calendar year.
I'm conscious and Paul touched on this as well. There's been substantial
Testing done sample testing done on the data
And GMP reconciliation which Paul has touched on and I know Luma are now looking at a dip potentially looking at it to ensure that we have
Total assurance around the data. So they are reviewing the project plan
I mean one thing I'll caveat with is they they said they would come back to us in the next week or two
To firm that up. So I think initially they said yes, the project plan was end of the calendar
The work they're doing around the GMP reconciliations. They just want to make sure that they can bottom that out
And they have caviated saying that potentially we're gonna review the time plan
So as soon as we know more we will report back to the board. So I just wanted to mention that
That's very recent as well. That's off the back of a meeting that we had last week
So just what I keep the board informed on that
very much
The final comment I had was really just to say well done, you know on page 17 the project for the dashboards
I know we ask you a lot of questions on the detail, but I think we should thank everybody for
Completing the project on time and it should all go
live as as planned so
Yeah, well done all round on that and please you know, please convey that back to to the staff as well
Are there any more questions or points on the admin report anybody wants to raise?
I'm not seeing any okay. Can we then agree these recommendations? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks very much
that takes us on to
six points to which is the
Scheme engagement and communications report which really follows the same format as we've had before are there any questions or issues?
Anybody wants to raise on this? It seems quite straightforward to me
Anything? Yeah, David
.
.
.
.
.
you
Right, okay, I'll pass that over in a minute but it's worth saying before before you reply that the boards fully supportive of these events
I think we've said that before and we and promoting the benefits of the scheme to employees is something that
We're fully fully supportive of so
I'll pass that to you who's gonna go is it?
Thank you
point well made but I think
We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we are there are two separate events here
the employer event
happens for precise reason not only to
remind
The employees of the benefit of them being in this scheme
but it is also, this is actuarial valuation here,
so I think their interest will be absolutely,
primarily to know more about what is happening
with respect to the actuarial valuation.
In the report, as Mo mentioned,
it's made of the fact that in January of 2026,
there will be employee event,
just like we had this last January. In fact it was held twice in January. So we
are looking to run another employee focused event so there will be plenty of
opportunity to keep you know pushing that message. Of course we as officers by
law we cannot advise we can only state fact what the benefits are as
highlighted in bullet points and is for employees to decide whether or not they
they join but we will obviously always state those facts. So the upcoming event
in October next month is basically to ensure that a fund is able to bring the
employers up to date with where the LGPS is at generally, the various consultations that
are taking place in recent weeks, recent months and what the government is proposing around
Pooning and other areas, specifically as well the ongoing consultation on access and fairness
and generally a lot of time will be spent discussing just about everything,
about the fund, the investment, the administration and critically the need
for employers to continue to work collaboratively with the offices of the
fund because the officers are here, you know, they help us to help them.
So I think helping them to, you know, meet their obligations under the law is really
what is important.
So that is that message, i .e. for them to provide information in a timely manner to
the fund so that, you know, things can be done for them speedily.
and also for the
Actually who will be attending the event the fund actually to be able to
Discuss with them where the current modelling is at in terms of the contributions and
You know where things are headed. Thank you chair
come
All I would add and thanks for the further for the for the reply all I would say is that this is an opportunity
Isn't it to promote the benefits of the scheme? So
It would make sense wouldn't it have something there that actually employers can take away or be familiar with exactly what?
Material you might have to widen the membership as and when okay. All right anymore
David you want to
Because
Because page 24, bullet point 1, identifies the objective of the conference.
And number 1 is to inform employees of the scheme.
And what we're hearing is, and the words were more important will be the actuarial evaluation,
and we're inviting the actuary.
Fine, equally as important, but it should, we're led to believe in this report,
that the first objective is to employees.
and I agree it must be based on facts that we've been told that as a committee
over the last ten years but the facts are very attractive as set out in the
statement about the benefits. Thank you chair.
Let me, John.
Yeah no I don't think there's a huge difference between the two views here.
I mean, I give speeches to trade union branches about local government benefits scheme, local government pension scheme,
and the benefits of joining it, even though I will always say that I'm not allowed to recommend it,
I'm not a financial advisor, never mind the pension, but it is perfectly positive to get a speaker or, you know,
and people just don't understand the benefits,
that if you just state the facts about the scheme in a positive way,
again, with all these sort of, you know, we're not financial advisors,
it will make a big difference.
And encouraging employers to go back to the workplace
where people are eligible to join, to join,
I think it's good for those employers
and it's good for the pension scheme because the more people we get the more
sustainable the scheme is going to be especially if
mature bodies are paying for it.
Jack I'd just like to come in quickly I think I would just like to draw your attention there are two different
acronyms here PFIF that's for employees PFEF is for employers two different
things so the the the PFIF kicks back in in January so we'll have two
massive events again specifically for the employees the PFEF which is
happening next month that is for the employers say the employers will come
because employers have a different set of issues we address with them as
directly, you know.
Right, got that, I think so.
Right, now any more, you're keen to come in.
Yeah, I just wanted to add to that information regarding joining the pension scheme.
I mean last year we've done two.
The second one, the first one was actually quite successful.
As a result, the second one was over, we had full capacity and there was a waiting list.
During that session, it wasn't just the non -SKIM members that we were targeting.
We were also targeting SKIM members, as in often when there's a financial struggle, people
opt out.
That's the first thing they look at, you know, that's an easy option, I'll just opt out.
We what we did was we educated them as to what they lose out if they do opt out.
It's giving that right message because it's not just non -SKIM members, it's the SKIM members
also you need to educate.
they need to know when they opt out what the financial, you know, impact they will have
by not being in the pension scheme.
That's first thing.
And then secondly, it wasn't just a presentation that we've done.
We've also done drop -in sessions.
So every year we have between eight to ten road shows done by the chief executive.
We have a pension stall there.
So anyone that comes in can ask us question about benefit of joining the pension scheme this year within the next couple of months
There's going to be about six to eight road shows will have a pension stall day
So we are doing our most best to sort of educate people
After what the benefits are of being in the pension scheme not just to the non scheme members, but the scheme members as well
Now this this this meeting takes place at the end of October which is before the next board and committee
So let's pick this up from
Progress on it next time. Anyway, just to reinforce you can tell I think the pop board are very keen keen on this activity
Can we agree this report please? You happy? Yeah. Yeah. Thank you
Now we were due to have the London Sea present today, but they pulled out late last week
So at the last minute Paul's arranged for the organisation who deal with the risk register to present to us online
And they were due to start five minutes ago
but so I think as this is now we're on the risk register item is probably a good opportunity to
Ask them to log in
Are they are they there
No
You've got legal Tools to
encrypt the
pessimism that has come to have
rebelled, until she brings over
She contactable anybody
Okay, let's just give it a couple of minutes then thanks
Yeah, what Farhan is suggested is perhaps move on to 6 .4 which are the accounts for last year
And then we can come back to 6 3
Which is the risk register
6 -4 is on page 83 and this is last year's there's a and there's a long a lot of material here
I don't propose that we should go through it
But Paul can you just update us or or our sand maybe even where we are with the accounts for last year, please?
Yes, thank you
with respect to the
draught annual report which you've got in your pack.
Apologies, I can see that the PDFs
don't seem to have travelled well.
Actually, Victoria's just joined us,
so let's pause this and go back to risk cutting.
Sorry to muck everyone around, but she's online.
Hello Victoria, can you hear us?
Yes, I can hear you. Apologies for being a little bit late. I was waiting. I thought I was being dialled in. I apologise.
No, don't worry about it. Well, OK. So we've got a few minutes to, and I understand you're giving us a presentation on the risk register. Are you using slides?
Yes.
OK.
Just a minute and a second.
So I think the quickest way is just to pass over to you to start.
Is that presenting? Yes, it looks like it from the screen. There we go. So just to make sure. Hello everybody, my name is Victoria Lewis. I'm the risk officer for the council, which means that I am, I facilitate, train, support, guide, assist senior officers across the council in managing the risks, the threats and the opportunities to our business objectives.
So just to make sure that we're all on the same page
and a common understanding.
So risk itself is a neutral concept, as I just said,
they can be either threats to our objectives
or they can be opportunities where we want to maximise
the chance of something happening.
The definition of risk in terms of enterprise risk
management is an uncertain event or set of events
that should it occur will have an effect on the achievement
of objectives or simply put the effect of uncertainty
on objectives. So the things that we're trying to manage are those things in the future that are
uncertain that could potentially impact us in some way or prevent us achieving one of our outcomes.
There are several reasons why we use risk management, the first being that it is actually
a requirement under the audit regulations. So simply put we have to do risk management,
however it can bring a lot of benefits to us as well. There's fewer shocks and unwelcome surprises
it helps us use our resources efficiently,
reduce waste, et cetera.
And it also generates lower costs of borrowing
and or insurance premiums and liability claims.
There are three lines of defence
when it comes to risk management.
So our first line of defence is obviously
our council officers and senior management.
They're the people that actually manage the risks
to our objectives.
So therefore they're the first line.
Myself and my manager, we're the second line of defence
with the specialist risk management function.
We can assist in the management,
but we will not actually manage the risks for them.
We manage our own business risks, obviously.
And then our third line of defence
is our internal audit team
who actually checked everything is working fine
and that we are using risk management
appropriately across the council.
Now, risk management is a cycle.
There are five steps to this cycle,
but it is an ongoing cycle.
So, at first we need to look at, set the stage, make sure our objectives, our stakeholders, etc.
are all highlighted so that we can actually consider the most appropriate business risks to manage.
We then identify and analyse those risks, assess and prioritise them, we plan the responses, the mitigations and our contingency plans,
and then we monitor and report that.
And this is what the risk registers fall into.
That's our monitoring and reporting process.
Once we've done the monitoring and reporting,
we also need to review and adapt
and go back to the objectives
and make sure that the risks we're managing
are still relevant to today's sort of environment.
Next one.
There we go.
So a little synopsis of the identify.
I'm not gonna go into this too deeply
because I'm sure you're all familiar with risk management
in your own organisations as well.
So we try to think about what the things
that might prevent us from achieving objectives
and the things we need to do
to make sure we achieve our objectives.
We like to do this in a group setting if possible,
because if you do it in isolation,
there's no real challenge or like I say for myself,
I'm quite risk averse person.
So I tend to catastrophize things,
whereas others in my team
are a little bit more relaxed about thing
and actually reality cheque me and say,
actually you're going maybe a little bit too far
with catastrophizing that.
So it's always best to do it in a group way.
And we do try to limit the risks.
We want the most important risks being managed,
not every single risk, because it does become unmanageable
if we just plug in every risk.
So we need to look at those ones that are really relevant
to our strategy and objectives and manage those risks
rather than every single thing that concerns us.
So we have an impact likelihood assessment tool
and an impact assessment tool that have been crafted
specifically for Tower Hamlets.
However, that is not the Tower Hamlets one up there.
I do apologise.
These slides were prepared before we developed.
We're going through a process of having our risk strategy
refreshed and revised.
So that's the old version there.
The new version is in the restricted document
that I will be sharing with you at the end of this session.
So we score things on a 5 by 5 matrix.
So the likelihood versus the impact of the risk occurring.
Currently across the council,
we do have 250 risks recorded across all levels
of the risk registers.
And these are how they're sort of scored across the council.
So we do have two that we are managing
at quite a high risk status.
And then we have several that are in this manageable area.
So these risks will potentially be removed
from the register soon,
because we're able to manage those risks if they occur.
We have varying levels across the council.
So the corporate level risks are the risks
that can impact more than one director
or directly on the council objectives.
And they're managed by the corporate management team.
We also have director at level risks,
which were risks that can impact an entire directorates
of business objectives.
And they require management at the DMT level.
We also then go through divisional and service and team levels,
and they are discussed at their relevant team meetings.
We also have in our new risk strategy,
we have proposed risk appetite tolerance levels,
which means that any risk that falls above a certain score in these categories
will have to be treated.
We will not tolerate any risks above those levels.
This is going for approval at the moment with CMT and audit committee.
So, what can we do about these risks? So, like I said, if anything falls above our threshold level, we have to, there are four T's, with anything that falls above our threshold level, we must treat these risks.
The other four T's we can do is terminate if the risk, if the item you're describing is too risky, then we can terminate the activity.
But there's not very many things that we can do that within a council because we have a lot of statutory duties, of course.
Transfer is where we transfer the risk partially.
This is generally using insurance so that we can actually ensure a process and then
if the unfortunate does happen we've then got a way to recover quickly in terms of insurance.
There are some risks we just have to tolerate in that we cannot apply anything to them they're
just there they're ever present and we're just making sure that everybody is aware the risk is
there and trying to do their best to minimise the potential for the risk occurring. But like I say
The majority of the risks we have, we treat.
And this is to either add preventative controls
to reduce likelihood,
mitigative controls to reduce impact.
And then we have our recovery and resilience plans in place
if the risk still occurs.
That's just a handy little way
of actually analysing the risks.
But as I say, I won't go into that too much with you.
Then we get to the monitoring and report stage.
This is what the risk register is for and the JCAD system is for.
It's a requirement that all active risks are reviewed by their risk owner at least on a
quarterly basis. Risks should also be reviewed if there is a significant change or event that could
affect the risk. The risk owner themselves is responsible for ensuring that control measures
are reviewed and that the actions are put into place. Risk discussions should be happening like
monthly agenda right and in all team meetings, SLT meetings, DLT meetings and CMT meetings.
But then we will come along with the risk management team and support that on a quarterly basis to prepare the reports for reporting to audit committee and to your sales pensions board, etc.
So, just going to give you a very, very quick, brief introduction. I hope this transfers over. I need to share this screen now. How do I share this screen now?
Excuse me while I try to figure this out. Apologies. There we go. And this is the live system.
So this is JCAD and it's the tool that we use to actually produce the risk registers.
Everybody is logged in when they first log in is focused on their own risks first.
You're showing your own records. You can also then navigate to your areas, to your corporate area.
And as the administrator for the system, I have the view of the whole system as well.
The Pensions and Treasury business unit obviously sits under the resources area.
And this is the Pensions and Treasury risk record.
At risk register, sorry.
There are 23 risks, 28 risks across the registers.
And Paul and I are scheduled with his team to go over these next Tuesday.
and actually start refining them
and highlighting the risks that are actually
truly relevant to the pensions board.
Sorry, I don't know why that stopped sharing that.
Have we lost it?
I think, well, ah, here we go.
Apologies.
So, at the moment we have 28 records across the register.
And I'm going to pick on this one at the moment
because it is our highest scoring one.
As you can see, Paul is reviewing the risks
and we're looking at them correctly.
This one's scored quite highly,
so it's one of the ones we're going to be looking at.
This is the way it's laid out in the system,
but then the reports obviously you've seen the pension risk register report so I'm going to
actually stop showing the system and ask with the reports that you've been and to open this up to
the Q &A part of it with the reports that have been generated to you so far is that providing
you the data that you are wanting to see the reassurance that you need or what what what is
So I can understand what it is you would like to be able to see then I can actually ask jcad to help me
Craft that report for you to make sure you're gaining the reassurance that you
require
Let me um, shall I just respond to that from a sort of obviously the board is a um,
You know a sort of a statutory body and we were you know, uh, this this meeting is being webcast. So all the agendas
are public
um
You said a couple of things that caught my attention when you when you were presenting so and thank you
Thank you for your time. Actually is one limiting Rick's to 12
To make it more manageable and I think we're a we must have what 30 I suspect
Yeah, and the other other issue which has caused certain amount of discussion is some of us are familiar with risk registers
Where there are three colours, you know red amber green and yet here we have four
and we were not clear what the different colours meant.
And that caused a certain amount of debate
in a previous meeting.
So if you could clarify those two to start,
and I suspect others might well ask some questions as well.
But thanks.
Okay, so effectively it's still a RAG rating.
It's just that we've got two tones of amber,
which I can see is a little,
could be a little bit confusing,
but it's the way that the system was set up
so that we could differentiate between those middling risks
where, so we could highlight the difference
between a significant and a material.
So the colours in themselves,
it's just a way to sort of highlight
that these are still sort of concerning risks,
but some of them are less concerning.
It's, yeah, I appreciate it is a little bit strange,
and I'm not explaining this very well,
But yes, the reason we have four colours is greens are those manageable risks and once the risks are in that green area for more than two reporting cycles, we can effectively remove those from the register because they've become business as usual.
The reason that we have this sort of the three other categories, we've got a material, significant and severe. Now obviously severe is in that red zone, we don't want anything in that red zone.
However, what we wanted to highlight
with that sort of middle area,
and I'm pleased, I'm happy to sort of discuss
adjusting this as well, because I inherited the four colours.
But the idea between that sort of yellow and orange
is to highlight just the slight difference
between the significant and the material risks.
What about, before I open this up a bit,
what about the public reporting point that I've just made?
you know, the, the, you know, what's on this agenda is, is out there.
Uh, and, and, and we discuss it every quarter. Um, should,
from what you're saying,
it sounds as though we should perhaps be reviewing the number of risks that we,
we have on, on here from 30 down to a lower number.
And that's what, um, and he says, Paul and I will be doing that.
And his team will be working with me on Tuesday to actually review this
the entire 28 and actually highlight the real risks,
rather than, like I say, again,
Paul inherited these from a previous manager,
and we've been trying to work out those sort of legacy risks
that may no longer be relevant
to the actual current climates.
So yes, it's been a long time coming,
but Paul and I have this session planned in on Tuesday
with several of his officers to actually start
pulling out the ones that may be duplicates ones that may may not require sort of higher focus and also
Following some feedback that Paul's received we're going to potentially adding some new risks there that truly reflect the concerns for the pension fund
Okay, thank you much right. I'll open this up so David
Thanks chair and thanks Victoria very insightful a
a
Good refresh for those I've been through this before but really helpful. I've got four questions Victoria
You described three lines of defence for this board
For reassurance that were all internal myself. My first question is
Surely an external line of defence is the external auditor. It's a fourth
Measurement of reassurance on top of the three internals. I'd like confirmation of that second question
There are as you say 20 -something
Risks identified there's 50 plus to 60
control measures
I'd like your comments on one individual officer being identified as responsible for those
50 to 60 control measures. The risk of everything on one. Third question. Cyber
that was raised at the last meeting is shown as its entry point as a risk as
nine. We've all seen what has happened to Marks and Spencer's, the co -op, British
Leyland currently and hospitals in London. I would just like to question an
entry point of 9. Last question. Control measures. Since our last committee, good that that has
been developed and listed. Very important. Good to see it. However, a number of the control
measures, and you can perhaps add that to your meeting, are, to put a blunt word to
passive, the words monitor or review. Of course that is an action but control
measures should be seeing some better definition of intervention where they
can. Finally added to that fourth question is I look forward to the
outcomes column at the end being populated to show the consequences of
the control measures taking fruition. Thanks Victoria.
Okay, but she has quite a lot there.
Okay, I might need reminding on question two, sorry, but yes, to question one, a short answer
is yes. Could you remind me of question two, apologies, because it was something to do
with the control measures all being on one.
50 to 60 control measures being under the heading of Paul alone rather than any other
senior officer or part of the council. Thanks.
Yes, it is concerning. And I agree.
I have been trying to work with Bala and Raju
in trying,
and this is one of the reasons why we're now having this group meeting on
Tuesdays so that we can actually go through this because it is not fair that
Paul has to manage 28 risks and 50 to 60 control measures. It's not tenable.
it's not going to be happening, to be honest.
So yes, this is part of the reason why we're going through all the risks on Tuesday,
to make sure that they are properly aligned, properly monitored,
properly assigned to people who have time alongside Paul,
so that he can actually support Paul in the management of the risk register.
Paul should only be managing the risks that actually affect the entire pension fund,
whereas those sorts of low service level risks and operational risks
should be managed by members of his team.
I totally agree that point.
And it is something we will be picking up on Tuesday.
Cyber risk is there's a specific risk on cyber
on the pensions fund.
So I can say that there's a corporate level risk
that also deals with the risk of cyber
in the resources directorate.
Where has it gone?
Yes, the corporate level risk, the risk of an ongoing risk of cyber attack is actually a lot higher on the corporate risk register and that's scored as a 16.
So the idea of that being scored at a nine within the pension service is that the risk in the pension service because of the systems they have in place, the likelihood is less likely than a council -wide sort of attack, I believe.
I will need to confirm that, I'm afraid.
And then there was more on control measures.
Has me answering two covered those points or, sorry,
I'm not quite sure if I have covered the points, sorry.
Yeah, the descriptor under a lot, not all, but a lot.
Yeah, okay.
Yeah, no, I totally agree again.
This is something I've been working on across the council.
I've only been in post 18 months,
so it's been a slow chipping away of,
but yes, control measures, like you say,
some are passive, but we do need those intervening ones.
And yes, and we need some more sort of decision -making
and power behind those control measures.
So I totally agree that point,
and it is something that we will be looking at on Tuesday,
and I'll be guiding the team in building in more formal,
more stronger control measures.
Okay, thanks. Yeah sounds as though you're doing a with with officers a full review of the whole register
So we can expect to see something looking quite different when that exercise is concluded, right? Thank you
Any any more questions John? Yeah
I'm just on 3 .5. We're to talk about changes to the risk register
Is this something to discuss now? I've seen Victoria's been involved in this. I mean, I
Notice they've removed the risks
to make appropriate decisions
the risk ended in zero one three because of changes in the relationship between the LTS and
Funds and there's another risk
And I appreciate things have got to change
because of these these proposed changes because they are so far -reaching but my
understanding is we really still don't know the detail about how these changes
are going to take impact and arguably and it may be covered elsewhere there's
going to be greater risk to the Tare Hamlets Fund from these governance
changes by employers be being even more detached than I think the risk is going
to be it's going to be changed it's gonna be different but the risk is still
going to be there and the risk by those charged with governance will hope well
not hopefully but likely to be transferred to this save but you know
the sieve governance arrangements are going to be absolutely key to us so
Perhaps I'm missing something
No, I don't think you are John. I'm gonna come in here because you know
There's fundamental changes going on over the old GPS and there'll be a different set of risk emerge
And I think the point you make about governance is something that is very key and it's something we need to pick up at
The next meeting when the SIP come
But from what I'm hearing is there's a full review coming on at the moment that you're embarking on and
the risk register is going to look very different in future to what it does at
the moment but the point you make is a valid one and I'm sure you know also is
going to pick that up and and Paul going forward isn't it because those
relationships are all going to shift and it's going to require a rethink of the
control and monitoring arrangements that take place did you want to come in
Elson thank you chair the only thing I wanted to add was on David's point
around how this is currently being reviewed internally.
It feels like it's being reviewed internally.
So one thing I would add on that is
we have been working quite closely
with the independent advisor to the committee,
particularly so he has provided feedback
on the risk register as well.
And that will be part of the discussion.
We've had that discussion.
And I think rationalisation of risks has come up.
I think one of the new risks on the risk register
at the moment is that transition arrangement
around fit for future consultation,
Which we need to have a good look at and ensure that we've got the management and the controls, right?
So we do have the independent advisor on board as well David just see your cited so he feeds into the process
So it's not just internal
There's external support there as well, especially support
You right John anymore, are you happy?
So have we decided to remove the risk of?
of inappropriate decisions by those charged with governance,
when we, again, we don't really know
what's gonna be happening in the future.
I mean, is that now gonna be?
I don't think we are, from what I'm hearing.
I think it's gonna be rephrased, isn't it?
No, I suspect, but you come in and tell me if I've got.
Sorry, Paul, we can pick that up,
point it up as part of our review.
I think the whole thing needs to be reviewed,
in a nutshell, so we'll take that into consideration.
Just to quickly add that in a new environment we are in, rapidly evolving, the pension schemes
bill is anticipated.
We eagerly awaiting what our bill says because the working relationship between the poor
and the funds will fundamentally change.
So all the...
recently become defunct.
So we need to look at what the new environment is
and how it has been reconstructed by the government
and then move from there.
For example, last week, not many people saw that,
but the government very quietly dropped
one of the provisions in the bill,
what they were going to do initially,
they quietly dropped it when the opposition party raised it
along the lines of will the government be directly
giving directions as to what pools can and cannot invest in.
So obviously the Secretary of State said
it wasn't the intention.
so obviously on reflection that will now be removed.
So something that would have been a key risk
has suddenly dropped, you know, dropped off.
So we don't know what, you know,
the immediate future would look like.
And something also around, for example,
local investment and things like that.
So those will obviously automatically, you know,
present new risks because it's not all gonna be
in the hands of the pension fund as to how they do local investment because the pools
will be responsible for doing all the research and selection around that.
So that sort of shared endeavour will need to be looked at to see how it's going to work
out and then where those potential risks lie.
So there are things that we just don't know yet but we have to wait and then redesign
risk register to reflect that new environment.
Thank you.
Okay, lovely.
Thank you.
Are there any more questions, comments?
No?
I don't think there are Victoria. Thank you very much indeed for your time and presentation
The one thing I would send you just think about this colour coding. I think that's something it you know going forward
But I thought it was a very useful presentation
I think you can tell from the number of questions that came back that the board were
Engaged in this and it is something we look at at each meeting. So thanks very much for your time
You are more than welcome. Nice to meet you all. Thank you. Bye now
Right, I think we need to go to six three, which is the report
I'm not sure where that are funny had that conversation where that leaves us. I
Was going to
draw attention to page 35 where the movements and the risk register of
Change but I think some of this we we perhaps covered have we and
Given that the whole registers under review given my you know, the conversation we've just had is there anything Paul?
Is there anything particular that you want to highlight briefly?
That that's not been covered already
I've been just to
You know
Emphasise what you know, I said earlier. We've already been looking at all of these we've
the independent advisor
Calling and some of the risks we already see
Looking redundant for example
double zero one three risk of failure to make appropriate decisions by those
charged with governance and things like that so because they need to be employers
not fulfilling their responsibilities towards a pension fund zero zero three
five say the whole you know bunch of risk that we need to you know rework and
all that but we've already started doing some work.
All right, thanks.
The one, I mean, I was gonna draw attention
to the appendices which I found very difficult
to understand in all the detail,
but given you're about to review it,
or I don't really wanna prolong it,
but just to make the point that what comes forward
to public agendas needs to be easy to assimilate,
And I said to just leave that thought with you are there any other questions or comments on risk I?
Thought that's a very helpful session from Victoria, okay?
Well can, we then agree agree the report and we look forward to seeing them yeah and you register next time yeah lovely thanks very?
much right
That takes us on to six four that we just started which is last year's accounts, which are in draught
What is the timetable for concluding these now?
Perhaps you could bring us up to speed.
Thank you, Chair.
The statutory publication date is 1 December, no later than 1 December.
The accounts must be published regardless of whether they have been audited or not.
The journey so far has been quite productive in that EY have reviewed the draught and the
reporting accounts for 24, 25 and are aiming to complete their audit following the Pensions
committee approval and so this report is asking the committee to approve the
pension fund report and the latest draught accounts for 24 -25 and to give section
151 officer the delegated authority to then finalise you know the remaining
work, tying up the loose ends with EY and then to proceed to publish by no later than
the statutory deadline of 1st of December 2025.
There is, thank you, there is a report from the board which I wrote which is on pages
2, long way in actually, I did make a note, 264 to 269, that covers our activities of
Last year and I thought we did discuss this at previous meetings
My only comments that really is about formatting
I presume you'll pick those up before you publish this because some of the the pages are quite difficult to follow
any questions on
This for Paul and the nascent David or even John everyone happy
Yeah, just giving time for this cheque
page 94 chair page
94 very small point but has resonance in what we've discussed to date you see
admitted bodies representative non -voting
Do you see that in the list of?
pension committee members
Vacant I just think surely chair after the discussion about the P F E F
coming up, that's an outcome to secure an employer's representative going to the pension committee chair.
It's currently vacant. Small point, but an issue we have covered and could take representations to that place
in terms of issues to resolve memberships.
I
Think is it a
Very minor point actually is
Yeah, well I've got an even one it was she's my name which appears on page
95 beside I go to the committee but not on page 94
I don't know if that's significant or just or not
But I'll leave you to trawl through this and pick up any minor inconsistencies
Right other than that any yeah another one David. Yeah, just giving time for others. I
Think it's in here. I was just looking
This is the report which shows
the underperformance of
Investments in bonds and infrastructure it shows
What page are you on?
Yeah, page 101, page 101, Chair.
So, in talking about Tower Hamlets as a whole,
the second paragraph begins with the words
The Fund delivered a positive return of 2 .7.
However, it's in the 73rd percentile, ending 31st March,
because the PIRC LA average for the same period was 3 .4 and we're 2 .7.
And when you drill down, it's either in this report or others, you see how underperforming the funds were in the L -SIF.
So my question would be is in that under performance which covers the pages 105 through to 111
out of the proportion we manage is against the L -SIV where is the greatest shortfall?
I would assume chair it's with elsif
That does not bode well
But I would be interested in our own small proportion and how well we did in our target against outcome
Thank You chair
What I will so I mean I'm aware that there are issues around the performance of funds with the in the sieve and
And this is will be a next time will be an opportunity for you to grill them on that. Okay
and
There's you know, there's been debate hasn't there in the committee about about this. Is there anything you want to add Paul?
about elsif
Yes, thank you
Yeah, I think performance wise
looking back the
last 12 months
Yes is
pretty mixed depending on the asset class you look at.
And so overall, the headline 2 .7 % in challenging markets.
And comparatively, yes, it's not the best
that pension funds achieve, but that's just reflective
of the strategic allocation that we had.
So whether the allocation that was managed
by the London Sieve or the one outside of the London Sieve,
i .e. LG Insight Blackrock and Schroder's,
all in all, that was what it, you know,
you know, it resulted into.
and it is a strategic investors obviously one year yes that's that's
what it is but I think we have to always think you know long term so I think
positive you know it is albeit small but nevertheless positive so it was the
correct message you know to put yes there were other pension funds that you
turned out better performance and there were others that were less successful
than the entire Hamlet's one but again it just reflects what it is you were
invested in at that time over that period and but yes there are issues
around you know what the London Sea have achieved and of course the London Sea
will be looking after the whole lot going forward so we will need to
obviously work with them and try to influence them.
And we are still responsible for our investment strategy
at grassroots.
And what I would then like to perhaps mention at this point,
because I think it's a salient point,
but nevertheless very important,
as we were discussing very briefly the pension schemes bill
currently going through parliament,
what has already happened in the last few weeks
is that the government has actually circulated a template for strategy.
So everybody's ISS, your allocation, will have to be, if you like,
mapped into the government's own template.
So which means that the allocation on the government template
is actually there are fewer asset classes
to what different pension funds currently have.
But the government have obviously provided
a very prescriptive, prescribed template.
So you're gonna have to make your schedule
fit the government's template.
Say because for example equities,
they would not just see one bucket of equities,
global equities, so there's no room to have
like sort of different flavours of that. So that's a new world we sort of moving
into. Hence again from a risk management perspective we're gonna have to work
with what we've got and work collaboratively with the London safe.
So just to emphasise that direction of travel. Can I just come in and make a
suggestion here because Colin prepares a commentary doesn't he for the
committee and the confidential part of the agenda and maybe to answer David's
Question if we could as we've got the sieve coming next time if we could put that on
This agenda that would at least give us a framework and some data to speak to them about yeah
Totally support that and if I could just drill down very precisely
Which is that if the L sieve has underperformed, but we are in the third quartile
73
three, is our position reflected in all other 30 London boroughs? Or are we an under a performer
over and above? So could Colin look at have all 30 plus underperformed or have some inside
that box because it's easy to say and I don't want to fall that was else if have
some performed more poorly than others we would like that desegregated
otherwise it's in a big box so that we can self reflect from our relative
position inside London as well thank you chair and I just come in there chair
very quickly. All 32 invest with the London Sieve but in different
proportions, in different, you know, so your allocation to different ports
will be different. So what you get reflects directly how much you've got in
which port. You know, say the fact that we all invest with London Sieve doesn't
follow, the logic doesn't follow that the performance will all be, you know,
The same because it all depends on the you know what you have in which part
we basically the basic point is everybody has their own asset allocation decisions and that shapes the
Investments and therefore the the performance and that's why we need the document to analyse
Just as quick one from me just thinking about access to data and information and then timely in a stop it
Know London, so we'll be turning up at the next board meeting just wanted to suggest that might be a question that we phrase to them
Now I think we that'd be good. All right any more
Questions yet John. Well, this just debate is reminders about the importance of ensuring that the fund
Whenever these changes take place and whatever way
that asset allocation is key, you know, it is more important than the performance of
individual fund managers, as important as that is, but for our ability to make decisions,
because the cost of the scheme still lies with the fund, about asset allocation, which
Trump's individual fund managers and it's just something we've got to keep on banging on
Absolutely crucial and all the evidence is
Supports that doesn't it?
Okay
In that case, I'm not seeing any more
Questions comments. Can we agree the recommendations to this report then and I suppose we actually we should thank everybody for getting the accounts out
On time as well
So, you know, it's been a significant improvement in previous years and we mustn't lose sight of that in it in our in our
questions okay, agree this please
Yeah, thank you so that takes us to item 7 which is the agenda for the forthcoming meeting
Which i think we've been covering as we've been going through because all these reports are on the pensions committee agenda aren't they
Coming up in a week's time yeah
okay
Item 8 is training events paul is it was that
Try to make the risk register issue we had yeah, okay, and
We'll have the SIP next time. I think that and then I think that would be be good
Which takes us on to 9 the work plan, which is on page?
271
Any questions or comments on this I
Didn't shows the dates where are we remember?
Anybody what the yes November meeting is on page 273 and that covers feedback on
the employers forum that we've spoken about already and an update on
dashboards amongst other things and the triennial of actual evaluations would be
quite a lot on the next meeting if we've got the SID coming as well yeah David
Thanks, Chair. Just the theme that we've been touching on, the preparation for a single
pooled organisation. I think Colin Robertson, the Independent Advisor, you could see it
is the elephant in the room. So if I could see us now, between now, because of the velocity
of change that really on a work plan a committee agenda that should be on every
committee yeah fair point yeah we can always provide an update on that
I
Can't that's the work
Pension board work plan and that takes us to any other business in public is there anything anybody wants to raise
in public no
So moving on to item 11 exclusion of the press and public in view of the contents the remaining items on the agenda the committee's
recommended to adopt the following motion that under the provisions of section 100 a of the local government act
1972 as amended by the local government access to information act 85 the present public be excluded
From the remainder of the meeting for the consideration of section 2 business on the grounds that it contains information
Defined as exempt in part 1 of schedule 12 a to the local government act
And then on the pink papers the motion will contain
Information which is commercially legally or personally sensitive and should not be divulged to third
Parties can we agree that please and exclude the person?
Yeah, can she seconder exclude yeah seconded by David and way yeah
Thank you