Loading
The minutes are published. No summary has been written yet.
Apologies were received from Committee Members Cllr Adam Kennerley and Trish Fretten and Officer Mari Thomas. Committee member Councillor Corinna Kenyon-Wade offered apologies for the public meeting.
Members of the Committee declared interests as members of the Local Government Pensions Scheme. These are personal interests, not prejudicial interests in accordance with Paragraph 12(b) (iv) of the Members Code of Conduct 2016.
The Chair was authorised to sign the minutes of the Pensions and Investment Committee meeting held on 03.09.25 as a correct record.
The minutes from the July Pension Board meeting were reviewed and noted. It was explained that the subsequent board meeting originally scheduled for October had been deferred to 9 December due to availability issues. Key topics discussed at the July meeting included: • Recruitment progress and steps taken to strengthen the team, including three new posts. • Governance developments under the “Fit for the Future” initiative. • Equity protection and cash flow management, with attention to the risk of becoming cash flow negative if contributions reduce. • Updates on McCloud remedy, pensions dashboards, and valuation matters. • Modernization of communications and governance systems. • Wales Pension Partnership (WPP) updates, including Project Snowdon • Review of the risk register, particularly the administrative pillar. • Approval of the amended conflicts of interest policy. • Performance measurement and monitoring. It was noted that the minutes were detailed and available for members to review.
• Attended WPP Manager’s Day in London (October) with Chris; event organised by Waystone and Russell – described as informative and valuable. • Participated in Bailey Gifford Conference in Edinburgh last week with Committee members and Officers; noted as enlightening and informative. • Upcoming JGC meeting scheduled for next week. • Recent meeting with Rob Lamb, WPP Investment Management Company (WPP IM Co) CEO, at County Hall (with Vice-Chair and Senior Officers, to discuss his vision for WPP IM CO and address questions; positive engagement. • Next meeting with Rob planned for Wednesday to discuss legal documentation • Emphasised importance of collaboration to ensure smooth implementation.
The Pension Fund Manager and Financial Reporting and Policy Accountant presented the report: The committee was asked to approve the Pension Fund Annual Report for 2024–2025, which must be published by 1 December to meet statutory requirements. • It was noted that the audit identified one uncorrected misstatement: an overstatement of private equity value by £1.1 million. This amount was below the materiality threshold and will be corrected in 2025–2026 due to the nature of private equity valuations. • Since the draft report was presented to Committee on 3 September, the only significant change was the inclusion of AVC values in Note 16. • The report was prepared in line with Scheme Advisory Board guidelines to ensure consistency across funds. Contributions were made by the administration team, performance managers (Hymans), and WPP. The committee unanimously approved the annual report, and officers were commended for producing a comprehensive and clear document. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Why was the rate of return only 3.9% for the last year, compared to 7.5% the previous year and a benchmark of 5.5%. Officers explained that the investment return for the year had been 3.9%, which was lower than the previous year’s 7.5% and below the benchmark of 5.5%. It was clarified that this figure reflected the 2024–2025 year and that significant market movements had occurred since the first six months of that period. It was stated that performance was reviewed quarterly by the committee and at WPP level, and it was expected that improvements would be seen in 2025–2026 if current trends continued. It was emphasised that investment performance was influenced by risk profiles, making direct comparisons difficult. Why had only 89.4% of employer contributions been received in a timely manner and were the contributions that had not been received on time from other employers. Officers noted that employers were required to submit contributions within 19 days of the end of the month in which they were deducted and the majority of the remaining 10.6% had been late by a day or two. It was confirmed that where contributions were delayed beyond this, processes were in place to chase employers immediately in conjunction with the finance team. It was noted that the issue was primarily related to timing rather than non-payment. Why was there a large variance in employer contribution rates. Was this due to higher contributions as part of a package. Officers stated that contribution rates were set individually for each employer by the actuary, based on funding levels and the employer’s profile. It was noted that some smaller employers were grouped to smooth contribution rate setting, but variations still occurred due to factors such as funding position and age profile of members. 360 retirements were recorded in the year, equating to about 2%. Was this considered normal or low for a year. Officers explained that the number of retirements depended on the age profile of the membership. It was noted that an increase in retirements was being observed nationally and was likely linked to the ageing profile of the scheme. It was confirmed that comparative figures for previous years were not available during the meeting, but the trend was expected to continue as the fund matured. How did the figure of 1,521 members per member of staff compare with other authorities. It was noted that the ratio of 1,521 members per administration staff member placed the fund in the middle range compared to other authorities, based on some benchmarking exercises. It was confirmed that improvements were expected following the appointment of systems officers and the implementation of new technology, which would enable the team to focus on backlog and McCloud-related work. Had having more pensioners than contributors in the scheme had any implications for contributions from members or the authority. Officers confirmed that the fund had more pensioners than active contributors, reflecting its maturing profile. It was explained that this trend had implications for cash flow management and contribution strategies. It was noted that the actuary considered factors such as the number of pensioners and expected retirements when setting employer contribution rates. It was stated that the fund had already implemented a cash flow management strategy to ensure sufficient income to meet benefit payments. It was asked whether a separate audit report with recommendations had existed or whether it had only been a certificate. Officers stated that the audit report accompanying the accounts had been a certificate confirming consistency with the financial statements. It was noted that a separate audit report with details had existed and had been presented to the Governance and Audit Committee. It was confirmed that the audit had been clean, with no future recommendations, apart from minor adjustments and one uncorrected misstatement relating to private equity valuation.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.