Agenda and minutes

Venue: Committee Room Five, County Offices, Newland, Lincoln Lincs LN1 1YL. View directions

Contact: Catherine Wilman  Democratic Services Officer

No. Item


Apologies for Absence


An apology for absence was received from Councillor M A Whittington.


Declarations of Interest


There were no declarations of interests made at this stage of the meeting.


Minutes of the Meeting held on 22 July 2016 pdf icon PDF 124 KB




That the minutes of the previous meeting of the LGPS Local Pension Board held 22 July 2016, be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.


Presentation by West Yorkshire Pension Fund

(To receive a verbal presentation by West Yorkshire Pension Fund, the administrators for the Lincolnshire Pension Fund)


The Board received a verbal presentation from Stuart Duncombe, Team Manager for Business Relations, West Yorkshire Pension Fund, in connection with administration matters of the Lincolnshire Pension Fund which were due to be reported to the Pensions Committee on 6 October 2016.


Performance issues highlighted by Stuart Duncombe, comments made by the Board and the responses of officers, included:-


1. Refund Quotes at 43% was below the target of 85%. The reason for the failure to meet this target was due to work on the Valuation of the Fund and the Annual Statements and the need to prioritise other work matters.

2. Transfer Out quotes at 28% was below the target of 85% and the reasons for not reaching the target were similar to those in (a), above, and in addition the late delivery of Government factors to enable calculations to be done had contributed to the backlog..


Stuart Duncombe stated that there were 39 requests for Transfer Out quotes and some frustration had been shown by people trying to get a quote. The majority of requests had come from financial advisers and these were mainly of a speculative nature, 94% of divorce quotes were met, which showed where the main priority was. Important issues were able to be prioritised.


3. The performance target for dealing with death grants was important and had been met 100%.

4. 79% performance met for death in retirement and 97% performance met for retirement actuals.

5. Six new members of staff had been recruited to the Bradford office.

6. Officers stated that following a number of staff departures from the Lincoln based office concerns had been expressed about retention of staff in Lincoln. There were benefits of having a Lincoln office but current circumstances did not allow staff to be trained here.

7. Staff changes to the Communications Team.

8. Was it the intention to retain the overall performance measurement target of 85%? Officers stated that there was an expectation that the performance measurement of 85% would increase to over 90% as the transition issues had been dealt with and performance improved. However, it was currently not possible to meet the target of 85% with some employers already asking why this figure was not being met.

9. How did the 85% performance measurement compare with the benchmark? When the service was run by Mouchel the KPI targets were higher and CIPFA benchmark also used a higher performance measurement level than West Yorkshire. Officers suggested that this issue could be taken to the Collaboration Board to seek their view. The Board wished to see the CIPFA performance benchmark used in future.

10. The Board suggested that it might be in the interest of West Yorkshire to reduce some of the performance targets. Officers stated that the service had experienced a number of issues which had affected the performance measures including the problems with Serco and the transfer of data. The target of 85% was appropriate at the current time but when the service  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.


The Pension Regulator's Code of Practice pdf icon PDF 93 KB

Additional documents:


The Board received a report in connection with the checklist for the Pensions Regulator's (TPR) Code of Practice and how the Lincolnshire Pension Fund met the requirements.


Comments made by the Board on the score dashboard detailed in the report and the responses of officers included:-


1. No. B10 (Assessment of Board Members' level of knowledge for their role on the Board) – officers agreed to send the self-assessment form to members.

2. No. B12 (Pension Regulator's toolkit for training on the Code of Practice No.14) – officers agreed to send members the link to this site.

3. No. F1 (Member Records) – officers stated that work continued with employers to improve the understanding of their responsibilities.

4. No's H1 and H3 (annual benefit statements to active members, deferred and credit members) – officers stated that the provision of statement to active and deferred members had not met 100% and had been logged in the breaches report. Continued monitoring would take place and processes were in place to improve the position for next year.

5. Officers stated that they would speak to Prudential to be updated when they sent their annual statements to members.




That the checklist for the Pensions Regulator's (TPR) Code of Practice be noted and that the various actions identified be agreed.





Pension Fund Risk Register pdf icon PDF 91 KB

(To receive a report by Jo Ray (Pension Fund Manager), which presents the Pension Fund Risk Register to the Pension Board)


Additional documents:


The Board received a report in connection with the Pension Fund Risk Register. Officers stated that the Register had been in existence for a number of years and the necessary controls were in place to manage the risks. The highest risk identified was in connection with Brexit as there was still uncertainty about its effects.


Comments made by the Board and the responses of officers included:-


1. What were the risks in connection with No. 7 (Assets not enough to meet liabilities) – officers stated that the current position would become clearer as soon as the Fund's actuary had completed the valuation of the Fund. The valuation was carried out every three years and the necessary controls were in place.

2. No. 24 (Brexit) – impact on the Fund's investments as gilt yields were getting lower. Officers stated that the Fund had a long term perspective on its investments.




That the report and comments made be noted.


Pension Fund Audit and Governance Report

(To receive a report from the Council's external auditors KPMG, which presents the findings of its recent Pension Fund Audit)


The Board received a tabled report from the Council's External Auditors, KPMG, which presented their findings of its recent Pension Fund Audit.


Officers stated that the risks identified in the report had been examined and the External Auditors were happy with how the County Council was dealing with them.


Following a request from the Board for KPMG to be invited to explain their assurances following the audit of the Pension Fund, officers agreed to invite KPMG to the next meeting of the Board on 15 December 2016.




That the report be noted and that KPMG be invited to attend the next meeting of the Board on 15 December 2016.


Verbal Update on Asset Pooling

(To receive a verbal update from Jo Ray (Pension Fund Manager), on the current position regarding asset pooling)


The Board received a verbal progress report in connection with the current position regarding asset pooling.


Issues highlighted included:-


1. Meetings involving asset service providers and Fund managers had been held.

2. A meeting had been held with the Fund's legal officers and arrangements were being made for the approval of a Joint Committee by the full Council in February 2017.

3. It was proposed to appoint two legal firms, one to act for the Pool and one to act on behalf of the Funds.

4. Various Groups had been established across the Pools to share information.

5. An official response to the Pool's submission was awaited from the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) but verbal comments from the Department indicated that they were pleased with the submission.

6. Regulations in connection with pooling arrangements would shortly be issued by the DCLG.

7. A meeting of Pension Chairs (the Member Steering Group) from those Funds comprising the Border to Coast Pensions Partnership had been arranged for 29 and 30 September 2016.

8. £4.2m funding had been set aside for set up costs of the pooling arrangements and this would be met by the partner Funds.

9. The next stage was to get approval to various work streams by the Member Steering Group.

9. Jo Ray had been authorised to work on the arrangements for three days a week.

10. The proposals when finalised would bring long term savings, provide efficiencies and build resilience.




That the progress report be noted.


Training Needs

(An opportunity for the Board to consider any training required)


Officers stated that they would send the self-assessment form and the fundamentals training events details to Members.




That the various actions identified in connection with future training be actioned accordingly.


Work Programme

(An opportunity for the Board to consider the business at forthcoming meetings)


Items identified for consideration in the Work Programme included:-


1. Attendance by KPMG at the next meeting of the Board on 15 December 2016 to explain their audit process of the Fund.

2. Analysis of the completed self-assessments and identification of any training needs for members arising from the assessments.

3. A further presentation by West Yorkshire on administrative matters associated with the Fund.

4. Update on the 2016 Valuation of the Fund.

5. Progress report on Pooling arrangements


The date and time of the next meeting was noted as 10.00am on Thursday 15 December 2016.



Original Text: