Issue - meetings

Report by the Director of Finance and Support Services.

The Committee is asked to consider the Pension Advisory Board draft Business Plan and budget for 2022/23.

11.1     The Committee considered a report by the Director of Finance and Support Services on the Pension Advisory Board draft Business Plan and budget for 2022/23.

11.2     On page 23 of the papers, it was noted that, under Business Planning and Performance, ‘on-to-one’ should read ‘one-to-one’. On page 22, to clarify the reference to the ‘future of CIPFA guidance after their Pensions Panel closure’, the Finance Manger – Pension Fund Governance explained that most of the work will in future be taken on by the Scheme Advisory Board and its guidance.

11.3     Members were reminded that the budget they were being asked to approve comes from the Pension Fund. In response to a query about the variation in the budget versus spend in 2021/22, the Finance Manager commented the spend for 2021/22 had been lower than usual due to restricted travel as a result of the pandemic. The sums included in the budget are provisional and so far, in the time since the Board was established, spend has been lower each year than the provisional budget. She commented that there is likely to be more call on the training budget in 2022/23 as it is a Fund valuation year.

11.4     In response to a query about the possible conflict between the roles of the Pension Advisory Board and the Pensions Committee the Finance Manager explained that the role of the Committee is to decide fund strategy whilst the Board makes sure the strategy complies with regulations and guidance.

11.5     Resolved - That the Business Plan and Budget for the Pension Advisory Board for 2022/23, as attached at Appendix 1 to the report, subject to the minor amendment in minute 11.2 above, be approved.

Report by the Chairman of the Pension Advisory Board.

The Board is asked to note the recommendations in the report.

6.1        The Board members in attendance received a report by the Chairman of the Pension Advisory Board (copy appended to the signed minutes).

6.2        The Chairman introduced the report and sought feedback on the foreword for the Annual Report.  The Board members in attendance had no comments to add to the foreword.  The Chairman explained that the Business Plan reflected the discussions that had taken place with Board members as part of the annual 1:1s with the Chairman.

6.3        Resolved – That the Board members in attendance:

1)    informally support the performance information for inclusion in the pension fund annual report for 2021/22.

2)    informally support the draft PAB Business Plan for 2022/23 and that the Pensions and Governance Committees be informed accordingly.

3)    noted the Pensions Committee’s business plan report.

Report by the Director of Finance and Support Services.

The Committee is asked to note the updates on Business Plan activities for 2021/22 and the full risk matrix.  The Committee is also asked to approve the priorities for 2022/23.

5.1        The Committee considered a report by the Director of Finance and Support Services (copy appended to the signed minutes).  Katharine Eberhart, Director Finance and Support Services, highlighted the resources and budget applied to the delivery of the West Sussex Pension Scheme and the review of performance for 2021/22.

5.2        The Committee made comments including those that follow.

a.   Noted that where the white paper was mentioned under ‘Investment Strategy Statement’ on page 24, this referred just to new infrastructure projects

b.   Raised a question in regard to PEN 46, what recruitment issues were currently.  - Rachel Wood, Pension Fund Investment Strategist, explained that work had been completed on defining administration and oversight roles and a temporary post had been recruited to.  The Committee noted that the risk level was open to review for the next iteration of the register depending on staff recruitment activity.

c.   Queried in regard to Pen 35, what ‘merger of large employers’ referred to and why this was a ‘red’ risk.  – Rachel Wood explained that Greater Brighton Metropolitan College and Chichester College were working toward a merger in August 2022.  Also, that the red risk score was a combination of the likelihood that what was described would happen, which was high, while the impact score referred to the effect of the mitigation which in this instance was also considered high as the work required to support the merger was complex, although there were no concerns at present.

d.   In regard to Investments and Funding on page 20 and the objective ‘to make the best use of resources’, questioned what the timeline and ambition were to reduce employee contributions for the County Council.  Steven Law, Fund Actuary, explained that this currently stood at 21.4% (inclusive of a reduction for paying in advance) with an ambition to reduce it by 1% of pay per annum until 18% was reached

e.   Noted, in regard to 2022/23 actions and the administration team submitting a full data set to the Fund Actuary, that the subsequent report from Hymans would be available in September

f.    Noted, in regard to PEN25, that the anticipated increase in employers in the fund increased this risk score. 

5.3         Resolved – that the Pensions Committee:

(1)         Noted the updates on Business Plan activities for 2021/22

(2)         Approved the priorities for 2022/23 (Appendix A).

(3)         Noted the full risk matrix (Appendix B).