Joint Pensions Committee - Monday 8 June 2026, 7:15pm

Joint Pensions Committee
Monday, 8th June 2026 at 7:15pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

Tech is great when it works, not so great when it doesn't.

Okay, so what we're going to do is we're going to proceed.

We can't have the people by teams, but one of the people that we need will join us in

the closed session.

So I think because I particularly don't want to keep people waiting in the public gallery.

So we will crack on.

Welcome to the meeting.

My name is Councillor Melanie Hampton.

I'm a conservative Councillor in West Putney.

I'm chair of the committee and my day job is an insurance broker.

I'm chairman of the pensions committee.

So members of the committee, I will now call your name in alphabetical order.

You may wish to say which party and which ward you represent and what your day job is too, not obligatory.

Please switch on your microphone to confirm your attendance.

Councillor Cardy.

Good evening, Chair.

I'm a Liberal Democrat Councillor for Fulwell and Hampton Hill in Londonbar, Richmond.

Councillor Craig.

Hi, James Craig.

I'm the Conservative Councillor for Northcote on Wandsworth.

Councillor Dickardam.

Oh, sorry, Councillor Davies.

Good evening, so Claire Davis council Claire Davis representing Battersea Park Ward conservative

Council dig it in

Island de Kadam Labour Party councillor for Shasta in Queenstown Ward in Battersea

councillor gasser

duty gasser labour for first time would

Councillor Ireland, I'm sure Ireland West Hill labour

Councillor geronit

I'm Alan Durianz, Councillor for West Trickenham in Richmond.

And Deputy Chairman, Councillor Serra.

Thank you, Chair.

So I'm Kulde of Serra.

I'm a Councillor from Whitten, which is London Borough of Richmond.

And my day job is I'm an independent financial advisor.

Thank you very much and a warm welcome.

I'm a newbie, although I was on the Pensions Committee for eight years before, so I sort of know my way around.

So welcome to all our new members and welcome back to our existing ones.

So we now have a number of officers present who will introduce themselves when they address the committee.

We don't have to do it as formally as we did then.

Item one, minutes of the 10th of March, 2026.

Are there any objections to confirming the previous minutes?

Are they a correct record?

All agreed.

Item number two, disclosure of pecuniary interest.

Are there any declarations?

I didn't even get to see my bit.

That's indicative.

I better do it. I'm a newbie, you know, better do it right. Are there any declarations of

either pecuniary other registrable or non -registrable interests? Council Dickerdon.

Yeah, I've got three and I'm going to do one for everyone. So I'm a member of GMB union.

I'm a member of the Palestine solidarity campaign and I'm a, as of a week ago, a member of the

pension finally, because we've been allowed to join after the changes in the rules. So

I don't know if everyone has to declare that if they have joined the pension, but I thought

That's the only one that means I have a financial interest in what goes on with the pension fund.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm a member of Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine, and I haven't got an update about rejoining the pension since the latest changes.

but I was in the pension scheme, I'm in the pension scheme as a deferred etc.

because I was in it for about seven years, donkeys years ago

and apparently I'm supposed to start receiving a pension fairly soon,

about a grand a year, but that's roughly.

I understand today at our pre -meeting there are rather a lot of deferred pensioners.

Jolly marvellous.

I am also a very small pension from when I was previously a councillor.

You don't look old enough, Councillor Gasser, if I may say.

I haven't started drawing it.

To eating the right things.

If I can indulge the committee, we have got a deputation

And I would hope that the committee would allow us to bring that forward.

That will be in relation to item four.

So do we have the deputation?

I'm so sorry, I got something wrong.

The paper has to be introduced.

And then I will call.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm Paul Giliotti, Director of Financial Services.

For those of you who were here at the last meeting when we discussed the routes and processes

that we would need to take, if we were to look to have make some non -financial decisions

to be brought into our investment strategy statement, and in particular with the responsible

investment policy, we were required to go down certain sort of processes, one of which

was to commission a piece of advice to look at what the financial implications of making

such decisions would be.

So for that element, and I'm going to be really brief so that we can get on to the

reputation quite quickly so I'm not going to see lots of time to ask questions.

So we commissioned MRSA and the outcome of that particular review is attached in summary

form in the paper.

But needless to say, what the summary of it is is that there's nothing in any of the three

pillars that the London CIV offer that would have a significant detrimental impact if you

wish to do it based on the current allocation that they've got in there at present.

And the second element is that if we were to make such decisions, and we're not making

those decisions today, but if we were to, we would need to ensure that our scheme membership

would be broadly supportive of it.

So in order to do that, we're looking at trying to put together a survey, and I think that's

part of why the deputation is here today.

But what you see in one of the appendices is very much an early draught.

It is there to say this is the types of areas that we're looking to do.

We have had conversations and dialogue with union representatives and there's already

– I've confirmed that there are some of the changes that they look to seek to want

to make, which included reference to a comment about what the Secretary of State said.

Said no, they made some value points that should – for it not to be in there.

So we've agreed that we definitely will be taking that out of a survey.

But the survey itself is not necessarily asking loads of specific questions.

It's a broad overview to try to get our scheme membership, which is 44 ,000 members,

ranging from actives to fads and pensioners, as to what their views are.

And you will recall that this is for a consultation only, and it is yourselves in your role as

quasi trustees of the fund in order to determine how we have set out and deal with our response

investment policy and wider investment strategy statement.

So, this is really what we're gearing up.

This is now to try to, what we're saying is that if you are like -minded and still wish

to pursue the option of making some non -financial decisions as part of your ISS, we're engaging

with members to see what you want to see covered in your responsible investment approach.

That's what the aim of the survey is.

I'm going to end it there because I know that hopefully obviously we'll let what the

deputation says and then there'll be broader questions, no doubt for myself, for MRSA,

and maybe people from the deputation. Wonderful, if the deputation would like

to come forward. As you're coming forward I just want to be clear that the

deputation came October 24, December 25, March 25 and it's now come back to us

here today so this will be the fourth go. Thank you very much for clarifying

I did ask earlier on today, I thought the question was rather general, so thank you

very much for coming back and being a lot more specific.

This is five minutes with one speaker, one speaker only, and we've got a very heavy

agenda, so I will keep you to the five minutes.

And we will stick to that.

We will then ask questions of you, so this is your chance to speak for the five minutes.

There won't be any speeches after that.

Thank you very much

Thank you very much for having me. I'm Richard Huey, and I am a council employee

I work for the road safety team, and I'm here representing unison

We're also here with members from GMB and the National Education Union as well as friends of Wanda friends of Palestine

And I'm gonna just talk on the five minutes on four key areas. I'd like to address in relation to the committee

I really appreciate you highlighting the fact is that it is our fourth visit as a deputation. I've only been on three and

and what I'd like to talk about is the history very briefly.

I really appreciate Paul Giolotti's update about the Secretary of State's statement

and then talk about some false trade -offs in the survey

and then I'd like to address the wholesale rewrite of the survey in that order.

First of all, as you're aware, this is our fourth visit here

and I'd like it to be made really clear and for the record

that it was agreed that the council would divest in companies that make unethical investments

in our pension scheme back in 2022, then again in December this year, and then again. So

what we are worried about as a union is why are we still here having that discussion where

it was agreed at the pension committee. There's a little bit of history for the people who

weren't on the pension committee that this is the fourth time that we're raising it and

And it still hasn't happened.

I'll leave that there.

I'm not going to go too much into the Secretary of State's statement, but I really appreciate

that that is going to be addressed in the survey because we realise that was a massively

misleading statement, which has to come out.

And any misleading statements like that in the survey, as a union group, we couldn't

possibly agree for the survey to be put out to our members or be addressed by

members. Okay the second the third point is the the false trade -off so in the

survey it talks about lots of the defined benefit scheme okay and what we

like to make it really clear is it is the money is completely independent from

there's a very difference between what members receive and what the scheme has

to invest. So members are being misled that they will lose out. They won't lose out because

they're guaranteed the returns on their pension scheme. The trade -off is related to what the

scheme might have to – what's the word I'm looking for? I've forgotten my word,

sorry.

What members are entitled to from the scheme is entirely disconnected from the investment

returns that the fund actually generates.

Thank you.

the core point because it's a defined benefit scheme.

Sorry, thank you.

Which the survey totally fails.

Just the one, not the two.

Yeah, I know, I'm sorry, I'm just losing my trade of thought.

Okay, don't worry, just one speaker.

Okay, so anyway, so we're thinking throughout the survey there's a load of those fourth

narrow petition in there and that needs to be massively addressed and changed.

What we like to say is, the last point we like to talk about is the whole consultation.

We were given the draught of the survey on the Thursday before bank holiday.

Okay, we couldn't have and we were asked to come back on three or four days later.

We really appreciate that now the unions have been consulted.

But the Thursday before a bank holiday to be able to have a meaningful consultation with your union members and

then get back with a response from your union members in that short space of time is just not fair enough.

Okay, so we feel that this whole survey needs a massive rewrite.

We need to have a proper consultation with members where it's a two -way street as opposed to us being told

we're going to just reword it here and there or change some of the language and stuff like that.

I think as it stands, I don't think the unions can possibly put their names to this survey

and we would definitely tell our members that we couldn't be seen to support this survey as it stands and stuff like that.

That's my four points, I think.

Yes, that's me.

Thank you very much for that.

I think it would be really, really regretful not to support the principle of the survey.

So that's what I'm going to say.

Mr. Giuliotti, can I ask you about points of fact?

The statement made about the agreement to divestment in 2022, I obviously wasn't here,

a number of other members of the committee went.

I'd also, if you could address point of fact about being misled on the narrative.

And also as a point of fact, could you please explain or quantify the issue about the draught

of the survey and the timing?

I'll start with the first point.

At no point has this Committee firmly committed to a disinvestment policy.

That simply has never happened.

What has happened is that we said we would look to explore routes of how we could possibly

do that, and that is why commitments were made, is to seek exploration, which included

why at the last meeting when we reiterated that point about what needs to happen first

before you can actually make that formal decision.

The committee members here are quasi trustees of the fund and therefore they have to make

their decisions in line with the relevant core legislation which requires them to be

furnished with all the key evidence in order to make that decision.

That is what this committee had said that they would seek to do.

We'd also, if you refer back and recall for those who are on here, we're aware that the

London CIV who are responsible for implementing any strategies, would need to have had options

for us to be able to look to invest in.

So again that reiterates why this committee has never actually said yes, we are definitely

going to disinvest because we've set out the agenda what needed to happen first before

we could do that.

The committee quite rightly has said they wanted to explore all options so that they

can make those decisions if, once they've furnished with all the facts and knowing how

they could do such a decision, they can make that.

That is where we're getting very close to now being able to do.

But that is what the Committee has committed to, and that's what we still are on that

journey towards, so that when we've got now the financial assessment of what it will

look like, it's now looking to see that if you then still like -minded to choose to

make that non -financially element, we'll scheme – we'll scheme members, and that

includes employers as well as employees support that decision.

So that's point one.

What was point two?

Misled or minority?

Well, I don't think it is misleading.

I think there has been engagement.

And it wasn't the first iteration

that was provided on that Thursday.

We had had dialogue before.

The challenge that we've got is there are actually to and fro.

And bear in mind, we've commissioned a specialist firm

to help us draught the survey and go out and do that, who have done it for other funds

as well.

So we've been working with those, and as the report says, this is draught.

There has been some changes since when we first were looking at setting things out.

We were quite restricted in timelines as to how we could potentially do things, because

originally the government was seeking for us to have to publish the ISS six months after

the valuation date, which would have been the 30th of September.

So if you recall at the previous meeting, we set out a timescale that was, we were being

compelled to try to get everything done by September.

We're still waiting for the guidance now, but it looks like that's actually been stretched

and we've got until the end of March.

So we do have more time in order to work with to get something to be dealt with.

We've been open and trying to work with the unions on finding wording that is satisfactory.

I should reiterate, this is not a joint survey with endorsed by the unions.

That's not what this is about.

It is the funds survey for the fund.

The unions can choose to support or not support and to engage.

That is their decision and it's not for me to deal with that.

This is the administration authority survey with the nine committee members doing.

I want to engage with them.

I want to have their dialogue.

I want to have their support because for me, truly, this should be something that is collaborative

and that's going out.

But the wording needs to be general.

It's not saying, do you support x, do you support y,

explicitly asking key current questions.

This is a broader approach to how

do we wish to set our responsible investment

policy, which can incorporate some of those wider decisions

which has been referred to, which

is why you got references to humanitarian rights.

And we address some other ones when we want some of the details.

There's animal welfare that you will notice that was in there.

That's come directly from feedback from one of the questions that the unions have

asked, which demonstrates how we've tried to be iterative in the approach that we've

taken and collaborative and endorsing them.

And if they've got other areas of concerns, I welcome those.

The point specifically about a DB scheme and the financial impact, it is true and it is

valid that the scheme benefits are fixed in statute.

However, and this is however, this is not about looking at the benefits.

It does not say, clearly does not say at all in there that it refers to the benefits.

It's looking at the financial stability of the fund and that is what your role as members,

as the quasi trustees are, is to look at if you're going to make decisions that could

impact on the financial stability of the fund, what is their view on it?

And it will impact on the financial stability.

if you're getting lower returns, and this doesn't mean the approach will deliver lower

returns, it may deliver more positive returns.

We're not saying that at all.

It's what is the preference in looking at the rankings of the approach to members.

And the union are perfectly within their right and entitlement to say to people, you didn't

need to worry about that, if that's what they choose.

But you, when we go to the employers, they will need to worry about that, because clearly

the contributions that they rate are determined by the performance of the fund in part, not

solely but in part.

The only way that we actually deliver our money is contributions and returns, and it's

a combination of two, which is why the questions are phrased in there.

I'm happy to change the type of the wordings to be more general and more reflective of

that, but the financial stability is something that needs to be considered.

It is your role and your duty as a trustee to take financial decisions into account primarily.

Your number one responsibility is the fiduciary role.

You can take non -financial decisions as a secondary element.

And we've gone through that whole process before and with the advice that we've seen and was put forward to this Committee in the past.

I think I covered it already.

Yes, we were asked about the question about bank quality.

I think it would be very useful as we have a lot of new members if perhaps you explain

the purpose of this committee for the pensioners.

Councillor Dickard, if we can finish these points, then I will come to you first.

Yes, certainly.

So as I said before, you are quasi -trustees of the pension fund.

It's not quite the same as it being in a corporate company where you are formally a trustee in

law, but you are acting in the same role in doing that, which means you need to take certain

factors into account.

So it's the strategic direction and the oversight of the fund, not just in investments, but

also looking at how we engage with stakeholders, and that includes ski members, how we consider

their views and how we incorporate those into a wider strategy.

But overall, the key aim is that this is a long -term fund for 80 years plus, and it's

your role to make sure that we are healthy in all areas of what we do.

Investments, governance, compliance, communication, administration.

And that is the type of areas that you can factor into.

Now clearly, responsible investment and investing in that sort of manner is going to be key

and pivotal to the decisions that you make.

And you can, as we've highlighted before, make decisions that will not necessarily be

aimed solely at getting the best level of return.

You can take those other things into consideration, whether it be looking at it from an environmental

aspect, whether we're looking at it from a humanitarian aspect, whether we're looking

at investing locally rather than broadly.

Those are factors that you are entitled to do.

But when you're making those decisions, you need to understand the potential outcome of

And that's why getting proper advice is paramount before you can actually make those non -financial

decisions.

Thank you very much.

I have asked, and because obviously I didn't even know I was going to be chairman of this

committee.

So Mr. Giuliotti is at my request going to circulate to all members of the committee

exactly that, what the purpose is and our fiduciary role towards the pensions community.

If I can ask you very briefly to answer the third point about the draught and the bank holiday.

I thought I mentioned it before, that wasn't the first version that we sent.

Obviously there was later that were, and then obviously only got them back from our third

party later on before I was able to send it out.

Thank you.

Now the questions will be open to the committee.

Councillor Dicker Demial first.

Yeah, so I just want to clarify

because I think that was a slightly misrepresentive summary

of the kind of momentum behind this committee

over the last couple of years.

I'm just gonna read slightly from the,

I don't even know what to call it,

but the amendment that we brought forward in December,

which talks about this committee believes

responding substantively to the petition

and to the wider concerns about investment

linked to conflict, military occupation or genocide is compatible with both good governance

and prudent long -term stewardship.

That the UN genocide convention and findings of the International Court of Justice are

legitimate reference points when considering exclusions related to grave breaches of international

law and should be reflected in the funds RI.

That was under this committee believes that.

In this committee therefore resolves to implement a disclosure of phased divestment programme

in respect of any direct holdings in companies identified by the UN Office of the High Commission

of the human rights as facilitating or benefiting from Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory,

setting out current and projected levels of exposure, realistic timetables and so on for

divestment.

It's very explicit.

So I think we have to uphold the position and the principle of this committee that has

been developing over the number of years that have been taking place.

It's just a clarifying comment and then I'll go on to my questions.

Yes, I want questions, not reading from scripts, please.

No, that wasn't a script. That's a document that this committee passed in December that

we have to take on record.

Can we stick to the point, please?

I'm desperately trying to stick to the point. The point I want to make specifically is that

I think in the gap between when the committee last met and obviously the election results

following that, there has been a total gap in the way that we were expecting this process

to unfold as well as revelations which I think are really important and actually very exciting

from the work that Paul is done with the Mercer report because the Mercer report now points

out a different trajectory, one that I wasn't expecting.

This is going to be a question because I think this is a committee where we debate ideas.

I want a question, Councillor Dickard.

Sure, sure, sure, but it's not a scrutiny committee.

We contributed this committee to shaping the direction of the pension fund.

We have a very long agenda.

I know.

Question.

This is a very important one.

So, the point I want to make is that there has been a grave change in the outcome that

I was expecting.

I thought what would happen from the ELSIV is that there would be Pillar 1, Pillar 2,

Pillar 3, and Pillar 3 would come with some kind of long -term cost to the pension fund,

and that would be the difficult fiduciary challenge that this committee would face.

The Mercer Report shows that there is no financial impact from Pillar 3, and therefore the plan

of action, illustrating the report we have been given, is no longer warranted. I would

request and ask that we discuss at this committee, moving as a body, agreeing collectively, democratically,

that we go with pillar 3. Because we now no longer have any worries about that.

Is that the question?

That is the question. Why can't we disagree on pillar 3 now?

Councillor Dickard, we have 44 ,000 pensioners.

This is the deputation has come to talk about how the survey to the 44 ,000 pensioners is

structured, which is part of our fiduciary duty and the duty of this committee.

So, that is very clear.

So, you're not talking about the survey, are you?

No, of course I am.

Because the survey is only, in my understanding of what we had agreed prior to the change

of administration, is that the survey was a condition because we were concerned that

there would be a fiduciary impact on the fund.

And now we have clarity from MRSA that there is no long -term financial impact on the fund.

And therefore...

So your question is why are we not doing what you want us to do quickly enough?

Absolutely not.

And I have to say, Melanie, I have sat on this committee for four years...

Councillor Hampton will do for you.

I have sat on this committee for four years so I don't need to explain how my responsibility

on the committee.

But what I would like to know is that why is it that we on much larger and I would say

probably much more significant financial challenges around the environmental agreements that we

all collectively signed up to, which I think were excellent and they started under your

administration and I commend you for doing that on net zero, we didn't go out to those

44 ,000 pension members.

And on this, when there is, I would say from the Mercer report, much less impact on the

fund, we are deciding to go down that route.

That is a second part of my question.

It will be duly noted.

Do other members have any questions that they would like to ask to the deputation?

I have quite a lot of questions for them as well. I was just adding to them.

I'm asking the rest of the committee if they'd like to ask a question of the deputation.

Yes, I do have a question not of the deputation but of what was just described.

I think we'll take the questions.

Yeah.

Your question?

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Deputation.

Could you tell me how many of the 44 ,000

are current or former members of your unions?

Presumably the retired beneficiaries

would no longer be members of the union,

but if you can give me an indication of that.

So I'm just gonna double cheque with NEU,

which is the...

We currently have about 300 members.

Three hundreds for the National Union of Teachers with Unison, which is the union that I represent,

it's about 13 ,000 members.

I can't remember which, sorry, Unison I represent, I can't remember what the GMB is because the

GMB rep couldn't make it today, so apologies for that one.

I think mercers have got some rather interesting statistics about the split of the pool, shall

we say of the 44 ,000. If you don't mind, I think that might be helpful. Are you happy

for them to share?

Yeah.

Thank you.

And just to clarify, that's just the current beneficiaries.

So presumably most of them would want to form in them.

Thank you.

So I think the answer to your question, Merce, we actually asked this question in the pre -meet.

That's why I'm bringing in Merce.

So very roughly, it's approximately 20 ,000 actives, 10 ,000. Sorry.

10 ,000.

actives, 20 ,000 deferreds and 10 ,000 pensioners.

I've rounded to the nearest 10 ,000 there for simplicity.

So 40 ,000 in total.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Gasser.

Yes, thank you.

So this Mercer's report has just changed everything actually.

So it does look as though it isn't a fiduciary worry for us, which is very, very good news.

So I just wondered whether that changes the union's point of view and whether you would

still want us to survey your members or would you trust us because it is our jobs that we

take very, very seriously to make these decisions.

And you know, it's not a like decision.

It's taken us months to get here, years to get here.

We do take it very seriously, but things have changed now.

So what's your feeling about just not surveying?

I think that Masters would have to, before you answer the question, Deputy Chair.

So, I'll make some more detailed comments later on the relevant agenda item, but just

to be clear, our analysis does not, this is still a non -financial factor.

So, whilst we've done some analysis which suggests that you meet the first criteria

on which you can take a non -financial criteria into account, there are two, there's a two

test.

So, our analysis supports the first test, that this is a non -financial factor which

which the analysis indicates will not have a significant financial detriment to the fund,

but you still then need to have passed the second test that the membership would agree with you taking those non -financial factors into account.

I should say I'm not a lawyer, so that is legal ease, but that's an important point.

Counsellor Serra, to the deputation.

Yeah, sure.

I think I'd like to just clarify, I think there's been a few different comments that have been made.

I would like to confirm and clarify my own understanding.

As I understand it, there are around 40 ,000 members, a quarter of which approximately

are active as in contributing to the fund.

There are about a half that are deferred members that have let's call them frozen pensions.

And there are about a quarter who are in receipt of pensions.

I guess I think what people have been probably edging towards is asking yourselves,

do you think it is fair to ask the other roughly three quarters of the pension members,

their views on what you're looking to propose?

I think it would be crazy if you do a consultation and exclude people.

I think you'd have to ask everybody if you were to do a consultation.

That doesn't make sense to anybody.

Thank you very much. I think that's very much the view that we all have that everybody should be able to have their say. So thank you very much for clarifying that. Do you have any further questions?

None at the moment, Chair. Thank you.

Does anybody else? Councillor Craig, did you have your hand up or you put your hand down?

No, he's a newbie.

Councillor Dickard, question?

To the deputation.

Great, thank you.

Yeah, going forward, if, depending on the outcome of the discussion we're about to have,

how would you feel more encouraged, more oversight, more transparency in you being able to genuinely

shape any consultation were it to go ahead?

I want to be clear that I think it's a decision that we can collectively make, and I'll go

on to that.

but you talk about rush decisions.

How would you like that process to work?

What oversight, what scrutiny, what timelines?

How would genuine engagement with the unions

to shape a consultation look?

From what you've said so far, I would generally say,

well, the unions would support that.

We would definitely back that.

And it does seem with the extended timelines

that Paul Galotti has spoken about.

It's given us more time rather than a rush towards September.

I think it was March 2027.

And I think from what I'm hearing from the committee,

the scrutiny that the committee are putting this under,

I think it would feel really good to support the committee

from a union's point of view.

And the survey may not be necessary in that sort of sense.

But I definitely think the scrutiny

that I'm hearing from the committee at the moment

with more time and more consultation has got to be a good thing.

Thank you very much for that and as I said we all very much believe that we would like

the unions to support and work with us.

I think that's really important.

But I go back to the point about the 44 ,000 pensioners.

I think this committee not only has a duty but genuinely wants to make sure that everybody's

voice is heard.

So I think if we could now move into a more general discussion.

I would like to remind you that what we're talking about is an update here.

We're not talking about decisions.

Thank you very much for coming to share your views,

and I'm absolutely delighted that we will carry on working together.

I think that's the most important thing.

And as you said, we've got a bit longer.

So you might like to go and sit down.

And I think if we can have a brief chat,

I don't want this to take up all evening,

but I think perhaps if we could move on

to maybe a bit more specifics about the survey,

and also how we believe we should go about it.

Mr. Giulotti, can you share with us,

I know we've got independents who are specialists in this,

how we are going to go about it,

Particularly, Councillor Sarah and I are very keen to make sure that the vulnerable, who

may be some of our pensioners, who some of them live to a ripe old age, that their views

and vulnerability are taken into account.

The FCA, which is our Lord and Master, requires that of us anyway.

So thank you, Mr. Juilliard, if you could explain.

Yes, certainly.

So, we're talking about timelines, so I think I'll start with that.

I think that's quite key.

In the last meeting, you'll note that we put forward a timetable, and it was to get to

where we are now and with a view that we would have, be it try to have something that we

could put in place for September.

That was because that was when we were being directed as to when the ISS would need to

be published.

We could have published one, as is, but it probably wouldn't have been able to reflect

the changes that we're looking to consider now in relation to that RI policy.

It doesn't mean that we've got to resolve this survey and get the analysts and can wait

until March for that.

We have to publish our ISS by that date, which means that we need to resolve all of these,

analyse any survey responses, address the issues raised, bring something back here with

a revised approach.

And I wouldn't want to wait to our March Committee in order to do that, because we'll run the risk that people here won't be happy and would want something slightly different and I'm going to have to publish.

So the longest I'd want to be able to leave to bring back results and look to finalise about how with a draught approach rather than specific wording, I'll use that language, would be for December.

So, with your, you know, if this committee are minded to, we can lengthen the process

to ensure that we have better dialogue and have time to engage.

But primarily is what the points that certain members around here have raised is that this

is not a survey for the union.

This is a survey for the 44 ,000 scheme members and employers, which we've not got on to.

and how we would address those and I was waiting to see how we would get on with this aspect

first about their views because that's what's been highlighted.

They're the ones who bear the brunt of any changes in performance.

We'll talk about what the actual synopsis of Mercer's report on it, so in English

talk about that in more detail in a bit about what it means.

But I'll also address the point that was highlighted around the ESG and the net zero

approach and how that was tailored because if you're thinking about the analogy going

on with that. The analysis we did then, which is why I did, is fundamentally different to

this. I have said it before, but for the benefit of new members to this committee. That analysis

showed it was net positive and it was a financial decision to set that net zero 2050 target.

It was financially positive on an ongoing long -term sustainable basis, which is why

there's a difference in the approach between this, we're still requiring a survey, even

it's not showing a negative impact, a significant negative impact or broadly, actually some

of the times in historical data, it's broadly positive.

But it isn't, you're still not doing it from a solely financial decision.

That is what we did with net zero.

Started out differently, but it ended up being a net positive and a financial decision to

make that.

So we showed if we didn't do it, and said if we didn't do it, it was going to have a

detrimental impact.

So that's why we're having to take a different stance.

That is why this is different and whilst we have committed to doing certain things, we're

not committed to fully embedding it and implementing it because we had nothing to do.

So that's the style and the approach.

And this committee sets time scales.

So the longer I've got, the better I can engage with the union representatives to try

to understand some of their areas of concern.

However, I'm just trying to manage the expectations that this is your survey for the fund, not

Not UNISIN, not GMBs, not any EUs survey.

So we need to be mindful that it's us as a group here, as the committee members are the ones who are saying this is what we want for our approach.

We have got longer time if you permit me, because at the moment I'm working to September deadline.

So if you give me longer, I can engage with them better.

Can I ask you when our next pensions meeting is?

September.

September, I want an update for that.

Are we all agreed for having an update?

Councillor Sower, you had your hand up first.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to, just for the avoidance of doubt, because I think there are opinions here that, you know,

if the report has come back saying, well, they may not be a detrimental effect on the pensions, on the pension fund itself.

I just wanted to just go back to the point that was kind of touched upon earlier, that we are, in effect,

towards the longevity of the fund, a legal responsibility around regulations and so on.

For the avoidance of doubt, could you just clarify what would happen if we pressed on

ahead without doing the survey, without consulting the rest of the membership?

Like anything, law is only really tested when anyone challenges.

And I'm not a lawyer, so I can only say what the regulations stipulate.

And that is, is that if, you know, your primary duty is to look after the financial, to make

financial decisions when you're setting out.

It's risk adjusted, so you don't necessarily go out and ultimately say, I want to get the

best percentage return, because in order to get the best percentage return, you're going

to be taking higher risk.

So you're looking at on a risk adjusted basis how to, how to do that.

However, that isn't, that isn't necessarily the only thing you can, you take into consideration.

You are entitled to make non -financial decisions.

And what we're showing here, and this is why I highlight a difference between this and the

net zero one, this is a, and is what Mercer validated as well, this is a non -financial

decision.

So if you're making that, you can do that.

You are entitled to do that.

But the additional step that you've made, now that we know that it isn't going to have

a significant impact on it, you can move to the next stage.

And that next stage is to say would members be, what would members be broadly supportive

of that view.

So that's why we're going out on a broader approach to what would they want to see in

a responsible investment thing.

When you get it back, you still then have to make that call as to are you willing to

make a non -financial decision.

And it still will be a non -financial decision.

But if you've got the idea that members would support it, you've got the evidence

from MRSA that this won't have a significant impact in, you are legally able to make that decision.

Thank you chair. It's a very quick question. Will there still be enough time

once the survey comes back to be able to implement these changes should the committee decide to do it?

Yes, because we're not, this is setting a policy.

This isn't actually setting any implementation to make or do that.

That's why we need the London CIF to help us to find funds that to do it.

Even if you've got this policy, you're not going to be able to action it immediately

because we no longer manage our managers.

We no longer do that.

This is about setting the policy to enable us to do it and that's what you're doing.

Then we can hold the CIF to account to get them to implement it.

That's what you need to do.

I've got a series of points.

I think it's really important.

I just want to clarify because it's been mentioned that tonight we're not making a decision.

If we vote on this paper, the recommendations are that delegated authority goes to the Director

of Financial Services in consultation with the Chair to finalise the survey, wording

and delivery approach.

If we vote for this, you could go away and write the paper and we'd have no say or scrutiny

over it and neither would the unions.

We would just be handing over our entire approach over to you guys.

So I think we do have to discuss this seriously.

We are talking about a survey.

I thought we all agreed that a survey was a good idea.

No, I have literally said at the beginning of the meeting that I don't think that's a

good idea.

You don't want a survey?

No, I don't think we should have a survey.

The other part is that if we, again, if we sign off the recommendations of this, we are

approving the launch of the scheme and the survey on reinvestment and agree the scope

and key themes of the survey.

So, as of today, in this meeting, I have found out that the wording from the sector of state

is being removed.

Fantastic.

That's great.

But there's been, again, no scrutiny and no transparency to how the finalised wording

would be, and we would be handing that all over.

Like, it's nice to hear at a committee that there has been engagement and that things

have changed, but if we don't set a clear, you know, what it describes here as scope

and key themes at this meeting, we are delegating all of that authority to

Are we reading the same thing?

Recommendations.

For Item 4, update on the progress of amending the Fund's responsible investment.

Update.

Recommendations.

The Joint Pension Committee is recommended to approve the launch of the scheme.

Your union have said that they would like to engage with the 44 ,000 pensioners and we

can go around this table but I'm going to

But I haven't been allowed to finish my point.

That is why I am saying it was highlighted earlier that there is no decision being made

and we are just going off to, I think that is categorically not true.

We would be handing all of our scrutiny power over to the director and to the chair.

I have a couple of questions.

When we made the nonfinancial decision to not invest in land mines and cluster munitions,

did we go out and ballot scheme members when we made that decision?

And if not, why is that different to the kind of decision that we could theoretically as

a body make tonight, make it another meeting around RI?

I think the argument you're going to make is about the second test.

So if the first test is there's no financial implication, then that's great.

It's no longer a question of fiduciary duty.

But there's a second test because then what is that?

It's a bit of a catch -22.

There's a very compelling case to be made that the UN genocide convention means that

us investing in organisations or companies that are liable to tribunal is a financial

risk.

So we can do exactly what we did on the environmental stuff.

And I just, it's a matter of will.

We are talking about pensioners in our role as a pensions committee.

Can I take your question?

Taking another question, as I said, we're not going to go on at this all night.

Thank you, chair.

Comments on that question.

First, reading through this proposed survey, I'm concerned that it could be interpreted

by some of the pensioners that there's a risk to their pension from the fund.

And if you're under defined benefit, it's unfair to put that people into that position

when actually if something went wrong with the fund, it will be down to the councils

to put more money into it.

The actual pension that people would be receiving

would not potentially change from the investments

that a decision were making.

So that's the first point I wanted

to make about this survey.

And from my understanding, the second

is to pick up on what Mr. Giulotti said a few minutes ago

about risk going both ways and potentially being

more positive.

The survey is written in a way that implies that a more ethical investment policy is potentially

going to reduce the size of the fund, etc.

And as I think Councillor Dickard has pointed out, and Mr. Giuliani conceded earlier on

by saying that things can be more positive, there is just as with an environmental policy,

there's the risk, it avoids the risk of having stranded assets in oil fields that are no

longer accessible because of net zero, etc.

If you are avoiding, if you continue to invest in companies that might potentially own assets

in, not the occupied West Bank, etc., you could wind up with assets lost because of

their criminal property.

And it's really important that if we're going to do some sort of survey, we make it clear

to people that risks go both ways in this.

So are you not in favour of doing a survey to the 44 ,000 pensioners?

I was going to ask if it's possible to act and then survey.

Having the survey and making the decision don't seem to me to be two things that you

have to do one before the other.

Well, we are specifically talking about the survey.

I would specifically ask Mr. Giuliati if there are other funds that have taken actions such

as to reduce risk of genocide without having consulted their members.

I can answer that to date.

to the best of my knowledge, not a single fund has implemented such a policy.

They have made statements like we've – like has been made at this committee that they

are going on a journey in order to do that.

Other funds are going out to survey in London on the basis that I've discussed.

I said I'm using cavity because there may be funds that I'm not aware of, but to date

I'm not aware of a single fund that has actually embedded into their poll into their investment strategy statement to formally

Disinvest they haven't done what we're looking to do is to seek advice from

Legal representatives to seek advice from their consultants and to go and seek views of members

Mr. Craig hasn't spoken yet, so we'll give him a chance

Thank you chair and apologies again for being a newbie it seems

to me that we have a timeline across which it's possible to do a survey because these

sort of decisions will be implemented at a certain point into the future.

It appeared from the reputation that unions were happy with the survey and we sort of

want the survey.

No, sorry.

Just to clarify, as the survey stands, we are not happy with the survey.

The principle.

The principle of surveying the 44 ,000 pensioners.

I thought you said about the principle.

Councillor Craig can finish his question.

I am very sorry, you had your chance to speak, no more.

You can, but you were the speaker.

We are happy with the council's points as well.

The deputation is now done.

I appreciate the opportunity to clarify, I am talking about the principle of a survey rather than this one specifically.

We have the time to do the survey.

There seems to be some disquiet about the format

of the survey, perhaps how it's sort of set out

and what the process of producing it might be.

So perhaps the most useful thing would be for officers

to set out what the process going forward would be

to designing that survey if it's going to change

from what's here.

And that might just help everyone perhaps consider it.

Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, the challenge you've got here

is that it's governance and timelines and how things can get approved because the committee

only meets four times a year.

That's always, no matter what we're doing and seeking to do it, which is why you bring

in delegated authority within it.

I understand the points that are being raised and the sensitivities around how certain things

are phrased, and that is down to committees then to determine how they best wish a place

to satisfy themselves, that those concerns that they have at the moment are addressed.

Hopefully you'll have seen by obviously the tone and what we're talking about from an

officer's perspective, even the unions have said that the dialogue between us has been

healthy.

It hasn't necessarily resulted in the wording that they like, and I would endeavour to engage

and I'll give that commitment to do it, but I reiterate the point.

This isn't their survey, it's not for them to sign off on.

This is for the nine of you as the members are.

I doubt we'll get to a point where we are happy fully with wording that phrase because

the aim of what it's doing for you as your trustees is a different necessary aim about

having a specific agenda and request to target a removal of investments in certain types

of companies in certain sectors or certain geographical regions.

At the last committee...

A new entry.

So if you don't mind, ladies...

Oh, I'm so sorry, you haven't.

So the two of you and then, as I said, we're going to go to a vote

because we have a lot of other very, very substantial business

that we need to discuss this evening as well.

Councillor Ireland first.

Thank you.

I apologise if you've answered this, Paul.

Given the MRSA conclusions of the MRSA report, what are the trade -offs for scheme members?

What are they?

Thank you.

There are two separate agenda items here.

This survey, as I understand it, is a generic survey which could consider a whole range

of different RI response and investment issues.

So this is not, my understanding is that the purpose of the survey is not just to address

one the issue that's obviously being discussed today is that a whole range of issues.

So therefore, for example, one of the questions where it says about to what extent would you

be prepared to accept a slightly lower return on your pension funds investments in order

to support a response investment strategy, there are absolutely certain exclusions which

would result in that.

So I think that's a fair question to ask your membership.

So you can –

Please, please, please, please. You are not a member of this committee.

So I'm not.

Will you stop shouting. This is an orderly committee. This is how we do things.

So I'm not a legal advisor, but there is very clear legal advice which the members can look

up from the law commission, et cetera, on fiduciary duty, which does apply to this pension

fund and applies to all defined benefit pension funds, even though the members are not on

the hook, in that account, for investment returns that says you have to take these things

into account.

So that's why I think it's a very legitimate question to ask.

Obviously how that question applies to this particular issue, that's a separate generalising

where I was going to talk through our analysis.

Clearly I haven't talked through that analysis yet.

So I...

Will you please let the committee do what it is here to do?

You are not to speak.

This is a committee.

We have given you your deputation with one speaker.

If you persist in making this noise and disrupting the committee, I will have to ask you to leave.

Okay, so

Counsellor

Honestly if I ask the question it's just because I don't understand

So what you're saying is not necessarily in this instance, but the surveys wider than that

So yeah, I would still like the opportunity

Which I was gonna do in the correct agenda item to talk through mercer's analysis. I haven't done that yet

It's quite a detailed analysis. I can't to summarise in the sentence

So, I think, but my understanding is this survey, it's basically a much broader survey,

which the committee can use to consider other considerations as well, not just the particular

one that's been discussed today.

Councillor.

Thank you.

My concern with the survey, my main concern is that there are far too many questions in

which seem to indicate that going for a responsible investment strategy constitutes a risk to

the value of the fund.

Whereas from the Mercer report that we've already seen, it's very clear, I think it's

pretty clear that there's very minimal or negligible risk to the value of the fund.

So I think we need to actually, that's why I think there's concerns about the survey

questions.

They need to be reviewed to make sure that in the survey that the members that are being

surveyed are aware of the findings of the Mercer report and have a properly informed

on what their options are.

Are you in favour of the survey for the pensioners?

If we have to have a survey, I'm happy to have one, but so long as it is properly balanced.

Okay. Mr. Julioff.

Again, just to clarify the two points, they're not mutually exclusive in the sense that the survey is broader,

and it's not saying that by doing Pillar 3 in particular that it's going to have a detrimental effect.

None of this report doesn't say that.

Quite the opposite.

The report's been, I think the report is balanced in reporting back what the findings are.

The policy, an RI policy is not about the singular areas and the issues around it.

It's a much broader one about seeking future decisions that might be being made.

The servant, and Mr. English goes on to talk about those points, is about a finite position

in time which can evolve and change.

We're on about setting a broader RRI policy.

The survey is not about the outcome of the MRSA report.

It's much broader than that.

There are certain elements of it that you can use for both.

I don't want to keep going out survey after survey after survey each time we want to make

a broad decision or something different.

This gives you a broader scope about what the ethics and the ethos around the membership

wants.

It isn't about this singular, finite person in time about it.

So we can change the wording, which is why I've tried to listen to what the unions have said and given the commitment that I understand what they're saying.

About shaping it better so that they understand that the burden currently is on employers more than it is on scheme members.

For those of us who have been in the scheme for a long period of time, we know we've been in three scheme memberships.

It's been 2008, 2014, and post 2014, all of which have been adapted due to affordability.

So to say that there is no bearing whatsoever, again, would be misinformation.

But it is right and proper, quite rightly, that as a defined benefits scheme, that the

rates that have been accrued to date are protected in statute.

And I get that.

And if it looks like some of the questions have been tailored too broadly, and to suggest

otherwise, I've said to happily change the tone and the wording of what's been used.

Because I want people to be broadly supported.

But this is not.

and I keep trying to reiterate, not base on what the Mercer outcome of is.

It's broader than that.

One quick last point and then we're going to vote on this.

The first thing it says on there is members may have different perspectives on this.

And it states the different perspectives, financial value, the value of security and

value, and then societal environmental outcomes.

When most pensions probably have the same perspective on both of those.

So I think that's something that needs to come across in the survey, that they should be able to make their comments and indicate their support for both those things,

and without appearing to lose the value by supporting societal objectives.

I would refer the committee again.

My particular view is that the views and opinions of 44 ,000 people is vitally important.

That's what I believe and I think the majority of the committee actually agree with that

as well.

Now before we go to vote, because I'm mindful that we are now half past eight, mercers are

going to bring forward the bit where they are explaining the Mercers report because

I think that is relevant before we vote on this.

I'm sorry, Chair.

This is absurd.

Firstly, my questions haven't been answered.

Secondly, we've just heard really important information, which is about the point of this

survey is to go beyond and expand above Pillar 3 as a decision.

That is categorical in how this is framed.

That is fairly unique information to us as the strategy going forward.

We are potentially arguing for a maximalist position, which I'm sure many in the gallery

would be very happy with.

Are we willing to go even further?

But that is separate from the pillar three discussion.

And we need to have some discussion about that.

This is like absolutely important democratic decision.

This is not what's being said.

And mercers are now going to comment on the report, which was further down the agenda,

because I think this is very important.

He just said that, he just said that this survey is about going beyond that.

Councillor Dickardam, please will you let the director speak?

I just want to clarify that, if that's what I mean...

It's a joke, I'm sorry. There are people actually dying in this world. Our money matters.

Off!

Okay.

I kindly, kindly agree that this is a committee that really matters dealing with £3 .4 billion

of pensioners' money.

It will not be disrupted by people shouting over everyone.

So can I just please clarify for Councillor Dickens, but I'm not saying about this, it's

not geared up to aim towards that.

So if I've given that impression, I'm sorry, that's not what was intended by my comments.

What I'm saying is the questions are not tailored explicitly to do you want to invest in pillar

one, pillar two, pillar three.

That's not what the survey was intended to be.

If you look at other types of surveys when you're going out and doing it, you're not

doing it because those pillars will change.

They will evolve.

They will go over time.

So what I'm trying to say is what is –

That's exactly my point.

That's really, really helpful.

Thank you for asking.

to try and to try to say that we're looking to expand and give you carte blanche will

prevent people working to do it. It's to try to understand so that when you're coming back

what are those scheme views and we will go back and no doubt there will be other times

where you need to continually engage with each time we do an investment strategy statement

every three years. There'll need to be some level of engagement whether we do it through

the unions, whether we do it through the local pensions board. This is trying to move us

into a more open transparent iterative approach and it's not about trying to say that we're

trying to tailor this to give people carte blanche so they can do more and then stop

people wanting to do that.

That's not the aim of this survey.

It's to be, like I say, more open, more generic rather than being explicitly saying,

pillar one, pillar two, pillar three, which is why it doesn't make any reference to

those pillars, because I can't guarantee you that they're going to be exactly what

it is.

You can't say that that's exactly what it is.

So it's giving you that understanding of what they broadly want us to invest in.

So I hope that gives you that reassurance that that's not what the intention was.

That means that we can take a decision on pillar 1, pillar 2 or pillar 3 at this committee

without having to go out to survey.

No, that does not mean that.

I mean that's just ludicrous.

That is an absolutely ludicrous state of affairs.

We aren't actually consulting on pillar 1, pillar 2, pillar 3 and we are going to make

references to things that go beyond the scope.

Council Addicted M, you have made your point over and over again.

That is ludicrous.

I am now asking Mercers to qualify because this was also in the agenda that everybody

had, they are now going to refer to that.

We will then vote on item number four.

Thank you, Chair.

And so just to reiterate, so I'm not a lawyer, I'm an investment advisor, but there is very

clear legal guidance advice, which I can't give as a non -lawyer, but you can find it

online, which makes it very clear that fiduciary duty applies to pension funds in the UK, be

be they corporate pension schemes or be they public sector pension schemes.

And that to take non -financial factors into account, there's a two part test.

It's very clearly set out, a two part test.

One, that the exclusions or that the policy should not cause significant financial detriment to the funds.

And that the membership would agree with those exclusions.

I mean, it's absolutely clear, it's very simple, it's a two part test.

My document that's in the slides today is just a summary, there's a much fuller document.

So if people want the detail, I would recommend they read the detail.

My analysis only covers the point about significant financial detriment.

It does not cover the point about the membership.

At the moment, the Committee cannot make a decision that I think is legally sound without

– you're missing the membership, the members' views.

So I think you have to – you need to find a mechanism to get the membership views to

come to a balanced decision.

I'm not on mine.

Those have been in place for many years. I don't know what the outcome was when those decisions were made.

The legislation wasn't necessarily the same. The rules that we're talking about came post 2016 with the 2016 regulations,

which is what we're involved in, which said those three -point tests were centred around decisions made after that date.

Right, okay.

So I think that it is important, having listened to everything that everybody has said, we

don't all agree, that there is an amount of work that needs to be done on framing the

survey.

We understand that.

I think the majority of us believe that the survey is valid, that we should engage and

ask the pensioners.

We haven't even got on to how we do it because I think that we should do in writing again

to the vulnerable people.

Again bear in mind that this is independent, but we have obviously discussed tonight that

there is a lot more work to do.

I think we can all agree that it can't be.

That the survey from the majority of us is agreed to reach out to the 44 ,000, but that

we have a certain amount of disquiet as to how we frame those questions.

It's always going to be slightly subjective. How are we ever going to be objective? That's never going to be possible.

But Mr. Giulotti has given us a commitment. He has given the commitment to the unions who after all brought this deputation.

That he will listen to views and opinions and I understand that you said you'd have a round table some time ago with the unions?

Yeah, we've had meetings, we've tried to set up other meetings but unfortunately due to circumstances they weren't able to meet.

to meet but the challenge you've got here is times and dates and when and the governance.

It can be brought back to September with a revised one but then that then leaves a challenging

landscape in order to deliver the ISIS.

It can be done so you know it can be done.

So we could bring something back if members wanted to.

I think it is very important that wherever possible we work collaboratively.

Okay, so because otherwise we're stuck aren't we we can understand the strands of what we're talking about

It's very important that fiduciary duty

So my suggestion would be that we work harder on the survey

on the terms of the wording

Engaging with a number of different people and to bring that back again cancer. I

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to ask one question. I know we're moving on, but just before we do move on, again, to try and clarify and avoid doubt,

the way the people that have set up this questionnaire, could you just tell us about whether there is a level of independence in them,

in that, is there a vested interest in them that the survey results come out one way or the other?

Absolutely not, no.

Because the people who are doing the survey have done it for other funds as well.

There's nothing linked to this fund whatsoever.

So the wording, the drafting is a collaboration.

They're not ones who come at the wording.

They have read through it to make sure it's right and proper and in their view it's okay.

They are more experts in conducting surveys.

Like I said, they've done it for other funds including other London funds.

The actual set up and the nature of the wording is our wording.

And that's why we can engage, we can change, we're doing it.

Their role will be to ensure, to try to reach out to as many people as possible.

To try to work out if we're not getting engagement through the online process,

through emails, how can they try and get engaged through a telephone survey, etc.

To get that broader buy -in.

Buy -ins of surveys are very small in numbers.

If we get 5 % return, we're lucky.

So it's going to be a challenging, but how else can you do that with, you know, at the

moment and with the short deadlines that we've got in order to do it?

Most of these things would require in -depth consultation, having forums, people coming

into having meetings.

Realistically, that's not viable in the short term that we've got.

Two years down the line, three years down the line, we may get a much better oversight

and engagement with membership.

But if we're going to meet deadline dates that enables you as trustees or Quasar trustees

to make those decisions, it's not, I mean, I put hand on heart, the survey's not brilliant.

It's not, because you're not going to get 44 ,000 responses.

You know, you'd be lucky to get 5 ,000 or 2 ,000.

But it's better than nothing.

And as what the advice that we've got from whether it be legal advice, what Mercer has

just been saying, what officers have said to you in the past, what the legislation says,

there is that three -point test.

We can't shy away from it because this is not, this is a decision that you're looking

to make based on humanitarian grounds.

You've said it all the time in this committee, so it is a non -financial decision.

And because of that, you have to go through this process.

Not officers wanting you to do it.

That is what the legislation is structured to do it.

And that's why all other funds who are making these types of commitments are finding that

same challenge around how do they implement it.

And that's the process that we're going through.

It's not perfect, and I'm not for one minute trying to say to you this it gives you a perfect answer

It doesn't but it's the best thing that we can come up with

Okay, and I think I hope that everybody

Understands that we are trying to work in a collaborative way and that we are

Saying to mr. Giuliani that we want some more work done on it now. I'm sorry

I'm going to move to a vote on this we have got so many other things to do

I will struggle to vote in favour of the recommendations as they sound, being honest, because I struggle

to delegate the final decisions to the chair and to the director.

I would feel a lot more comfortable if we said to have a working group, maybe one councillor

from each council, something like that.

So it also gives the view of the other members, the non -union members, we need the unions'

views, we need somebody representing all the others.

Councillor Gasser, Mr. Giuliani.

We need an amendment.

Mr. Giulotti has specifically said that he will continue to engage with the unions.

This is about our pensioners, this is about our pensioners, not solely about the unions.

Exactly so, this is why you need a member, members to be involved as well to speak on

behalf of everybody else.

44 ,000 pensioners.

Yes, exactly so.

So we are now going to vote on the...

Can I suggest an amendment?

Can we have an amendment to recommendations for the unions?

We can't start having an amendment at this stage.

Of course we can. It's within the standing orders that we can amend something at this committee and vote on it.

That's part of being a Councillor and being a Council.

We don't need to wait until September. We can just say on C we can get agreement at this committee.

Councillor Dickardam, I didn't realise you were the Chairman.

No, I'm just suggesting because I realised we were trying to shut the Moxer down.

officers.

I'm being given advice here.

Excuse me, let me speak.

We can listen.

we can request the director of financial services in consultation with the chair

and deputy chair to reconsider the wording and present an updated report

back to the committee in September that is what I suggest that we do that

doesn't help even your own position councillor Hampton because we we none of

us want to delay this process and doing that would delay the process so I don't

understand why in between now and September this working group couldn't be

seen to sign off on the final wording of any consultation that goes on that would

be talking about the chairman and the deputy chairman why is it we all know

that the more people that you have involved the less likely you are to ever

agree any agreement at all? We all know, Councillor Hampton, we all know the reason why this is

being done is because you do not have a majority vote on this council because we have representatives

from the Liberal Democrats and us. Councillor Dickardam, I really think that you are dragging

this committee down. Will you kindly stick to pensions? Stop politicising. I'm not politicising,

I'm just stating a fact that the reason why you're trying to remove democracy from this

So you won't agree to this?

You won't agree to the amendment?

Want to amend C so that you don't get final sign off on the survey wording?

No, you're trying to...

This is consulting.

Any decision would come back to September.

That's what's on the table.

So the final survey wording and delivery approach will come off for a vote in September?

No, we are not talking about that.

That's not amending C, is it?

Are we all agreed that we go to the membership and this is just about the wording?

No, it's about the mechanism.

No, are we agreed that this goes to the membership or not?

So I think I might have lost the room on whether we, I don't see why you can't.

I am asking the committee members if they are in favour of going to the membership and

doing the survey.

A survey.

Yes.

Are we agreed on that point?

I'm not but I realise I'm a minority in this committee.

That's fine, but I think.

I agree to a survey, but I'm not convinced

that we have to do the survey first.

So, can I have a show of hands

who wants to agree to a survey?

Right, we agree, so we have a survey.

What we are now discussing is the mechanism

of how we discuss what the survey is

without entangling it in too many different strands.

So.

The question being asked is if it comes back with a revised wording of a survey in September,

would it have a detrimental impact?

No, I think we can do it because, like I said before, it may not be the final version of

events what we have with an ISS.

They change generally anyway going forward.

So I would hope that we could get broad overview support

if we came back, and it will mean that in September

we'll have to have pretty much a final iteration

of what the survey is going to be.

Paul, come on, come on, that's crazy

because then we can't edit the document in the meeting.

No, no, I agree with that, but it's the dialogue

of what happens in between, and I get what you're saying,

Councillor Dickard, and that's trying the mechanism

for how we can get agreed wording

and who to collaborate with in between.

What I'm saying is the question that was asked is

if if we got that final sign off in September, do I think I could still produce for the March

committee an investment strategy statement that incorporated a revised RI policy.

So that I think that six month window is is sufficient, it's tight, but I think it still

is sufficient because we still then need to engage and it's not going out, you don't have

to survey members to sign off the ISS, you just need to have broad engagement whether

it through the through the board, whether it be and liaise with unions, but if we've

engagement with on the process of the survey, it should hopefully be rubber stamped.

So and I totally get your point, Councillor Dickard, about what happens between now and

the next committee, how you get the revised wording.

And I think it's also important that we can talk about the structure and the independence

of the surveyors and everything else.

You have a point.

I just wanted to say on recommendation C, if we perhaps by way forward we'd be to delegate

authority to the chair, the vice chair and another Councillor.

And we could then move forward and actually perhaps if that authority was then delegated

to those, we wouldn't have to wait until September.

And who are you suggesting for this?

Councillor Gasser.

So excuse me, I have warned you. I am told, I am told that we're not allowed to do that.

Because you have your chair and vice chair who can make the decision, you can have a

working group with other members to decide, but the formal decision must either be taken

through a delegation authority or by the committee.

Let's have a working group, sounds really good.

I think working group's a really good idea.

Thank you for suggesting that.

As a compromise, are you prepared to have Councillor Gasser

to talk to us even though the delegation has to come

through us, because otherwise it would be unfair?

Are you comfortable with that?

Look, in the interest of trying to find some way forward,

I'm willing to agree anything that will get us

through this impasse.

Is it okay if I just ask one question of Paul Gigliotti?

There's a lot of contention around the content

of the survey and the wording of the survey.

Can you just enlighten us as to how similar

or different is this survey to others that have gone out?

It's very limited in looking at others.

Some have been very granular and specific

about particular questions.

Like the Easington one, it's asking about

three main sort of questions asking tailored specific questions.

So each committee is obviously looking at it from a different perspective and looking

to see what is it that they're seeking to try to achieve.

We've talked about in the past about setting a responsible investment policy that tailors

towards these sort of other aspects which include – and I say you use it to exclude

the humanitarian matters, but it's not solely exclusive to it because it incorporates environmental

decisions that we've made before which we've not gone back out and looked at.

So there aren't many out there.

We are one of the leading areas in moving forward with this journey.

And that is probably why it is so challenging and why it's, you know, we're having this

lengthy discussion with differing views.

Because there isn't something I can go back to and say, Fund A, B, C, D and E have done

it this way.

FG, H and I have done it that way.

Here you go, here's some comparators, which do you prefer?

It would make my life a lot easier if it was and I could just go into Google search and

then draw it out and say I've got 10, 15.

They aren't there.

And that is the challenge why we've got and why I'm saying it's not tried and tested,

it's not been tested in law.

You know, there are other, you know, third party individuals who are very keen, who have

differing views to some of the proposals being put forward onto here.

other sort of groups who represent other sectors.

What we haven't talked about is we haven't engaged around doing anything else, but those

of you on the last committee will recall what our KC has said about the public sector equality

duty.

And if we go down and use certain things as well, you then have to do some analysis based

on that.

This broad overview and this broad approach that we're seeking to do potentially could

negate that need to go down the buns.

And I take Councillor Dickerson's point in we want to negate the need to actually have to do more and more and more.

If we can show that we are meeting our requirements without having to take on further things and further surveys.

Which is why having a broader, non -specific question orientated to get an idea about how we want to seek to do it.

I'm hoping would stop a challenge and we may get a challenge and put judicial review or something from other parties.

If the decisions made here are deemed to not be in accordance with legal advice and the

legislation, our role as officers is to try to ensure that we mitigate those risks.

And that's what we're aiming to do here, because if we've got evidence to support

that even though it's a non -financial decision, it's not going to have a detrimental impact.

Tip one, we've gone out and surveyed our members more broadly.

that includes all people from all sectors of life and all ethnic backgrounds and religions

that have had the opportunity to comment upon it, that will give us that opportunity to

make a decision here that hopefully whatever decision you then make would stand up to challenge

by a party who doesn't like the third party, not political party, third party, that doesn't

like the call that the nine of you will ultimately end up making.

Okay, right, so…

You have a legal obligation to start conflicting in genocide.

Right. So, C, are we, my committee listen, the request that the director, will you, right,

C, request that the director of financial services meet with the chair, vice chair and

Councillor Gasser through an informal working group to reconsider wording and present an

updated report back to the committee in September and I would suggest that we did that in June

so we're not kicking it into the long grass. That I'm told is how we can legally do this.

Councillor Gasol would you be prepared to accept that? Thank you. Are the rest prepared

to accept that? And I want to reiterate that we all want to work together to do the best

for our pensioners. Are we all agreed now?

Clarifying. If you have the meeting in June and you determine a wording that you're all

happy with.

Oh no, no, no, we won't do it that quickly but we can start inputting. What I'm saying

is I'm making a public commitment that we won't say at the end of August when everybody's

on holiday, we should have a little meeting. I'm suggesting that we meet before then in

in June so that we can start having those detailed conversations.

I very much doubt and when Mr. Giulotti is going to meet with union reps,

I mean, it's just not going to happen, is it?

There's a lot of views and opinions.

So, but we will have that initial meeting

then in June to show how committed we are to finding a solution that may not please

all of us, but that we can work with. Are we all happy with that now?

Does that mean the survey will go out before September and we get results?

It will come back.

It was still coming to the next meeting.

I think that's what everybody wants, isn't it?

The finalised wording is going to come back to the September committee to be voted on.

That's what we're saying.

After the working group has fed into it.

work and go.

They will do their separate.

Because we need to silo it.

Because that's the way it is.

That's the way it is.

Can I make a suggestion?

I have my hand up a few times.

I would like to say something.

I personally think it's very important that we do speak to the members.

I think it's really important.

So I'm supportive of that in this survey.

But I am concerned that I hear phrases and things

that people really disagree violently

almost with some of the things that are written here.

So I would love it if next time we get to see this,

perhaps this is an ask of the working group

and I'm also very happy with that concept,

that we can see what are the points of disagreement.

So it's not just presented by the survey,

but here are the points by which we disagreed

and most importantly, why.

So for me that would be a transparent way of understanding the perspectives, recognising

that we are going to disagree about things and we're not going to meet everybody's needs.

But I think as described, as said by the union reps here, it is important that we have consultation.

And I would be very uncomfortable with just a union view and not those of others as well,

particularly employers and the pensioners themselves.

And you laid out the sort of, you know, 75%, 25%, et cetera.

So that's an idea.

We agree the agreed, and then we put the disagree on the table

and have a discussion about it.

But are we all now content?

Can you read out question C?

Because just if it.

Right, OK.

Yeah, because I don't want to hand over

the democratic right of this committee over to.

Request that the director of financial services

meets with the chair, vice chair, and Councillor Gasser through an informal

working group, because it can't be anything other than that because the

rules, to reconsider wording and present an updated report back to the committee

in September. That's very clear.

Do you want me to read it again?

So we're going to get the final document of the consultation as for us to vote on at the

September committee?

Okay.

Are we?

Yes, basically.

I mean they would normally be they would be involved in that whole process as well and consulted

But and but they again are it's six people. I know they represent them and for smaller things

We put stuff through where it's broadly. Okay, but this is fundamental which is why we still need to get a broader

view I

Think we all agree pensions a king. Thank thank you very much. Oh

Sorry, right to agree the Joint Pensions Committee is recommended to a

Do you want me to read it out or can you read it yourself?

Read it out, okay.

Approve the launch of a scheme member survey on responsible investment.

B, agree the proposed scope and key themes of the survey are set out in this report.

C, request that the director of financial services meet with the chair, vice chair,

and Councillor Gasser through an informal working group to reconsider wording and present

an updated report back to the committee in September.

D, note that survey results will be reported back to committee and will inform updates

to the funds responsible investment strategy and investment strategy statement, brackets

ISS, close brackets.

We all agreed.

Agreed.

Thank you very much.

on a B and I'm gonna vote for CMD thank you thank you that will be noted

council the decadent right now if we can move on to item three the pension fund

external audit plan this gives me the opportunity just to remind you as I've

reminded that we have a statutory duty as members of this committee to be trained, which

I think is absolutely appropriate and right.

There are lots of online training that we have to do.

I understand it totals seven hours in a year.

I'm also very keen that we have either a day or half day session.

I understand I work and a lot of the committee work too, where we can have independent experts

and have a more collaborative, interactive session.

My strongest advice to you is that we start

doing the homework sooner rather than later,

rather than doing the seven hours.

I'm advised that before it wasn't a legal requirement,

although Wandsworth and Richmond did encourage

members of this committee to do that.

So I understand that it will be followed through,

So I'm just suggesting that we start doing it sooner or later.

I think it comes in bite -sized training chunks, so it shouldn't be too difficult.

So we are now – so I would ask the Director of Finance to introduce the report.

Mr. Giuliati, if I can suggest that we are very timely with the rest of our papers.

That works for me.

And in light of that, as this report is primarily our external auditors,

I will pass directly over to Kevin Suter to present.

Thank you, Mr. Suter.

Thank you very much, and good evening, members.

So my name is Kevin Suter.

I'm the partner at Ernst & Young.

I'm responsible for the Audits of the Repention Funds.

I'm joined here this evening by my audit manager.

I'll just ask her to quickly introduce herself.

Thank you.

Hi, everyone.

I'm Nana and I'm accompanying Kevin.

I'm Audit Manager of the Pension Fund for 2526.

Thank you.

So we've come here today in person, we thought, because we are new to the pension fund, as

noting some of the members are new, we would come in person to make your acquaintance before

we come back later this year to actually report on the results of our work.

So, our responsibility, to put it as quickly as I can, is relatively straightforward.

We are required to give an opinion on the accounts of the pension fund and whether they

represent a true and fair view of the balances of financial affairs.

So, we undertake a programme of work, and that programme is set out by international auditing

standards.

And part of that requirement is to actually then bring a plan back to you.

So, the plan sets out the areas we have to communicate.

It doesn't contain the entirety of the audit strategy,

but it critically contains a couple of areas.

So firstly, where we see the potential

for greater risk of error.

And just because an item is on that list

doesn't mean we're gonna find anything wrong,

it's just our view there is a potential.

We summarise those areas on page 22

of the executive summary of the report.

So very quickly, we've got a presumption

of a risk of management override of controls.

That's the risk we have to respond to

on every single audit.

We have two risks around the valuation of investment assets, just in case they are presented

incorrectly and finally there is a risk around the disclosure of future pension retirement

benefits because that is an area full of judgement and assumptions.

Broadly speaking for the members information, as you have asked about comparative before,

these risks that we have pointed out here are pretty common across local government

pension fund audits as a whole.

Otherwise the only other aspect I need to highlight to your attention is around materiality.

So that's essentially the value that we see as the reasonable margin for error before the accounts would be misleading to the reader

And we calculate that based upon the net assets of the fund we take the 1 % figure as set out and so

That's the calculated figure we're using for our materiality

But we do bring back any issues of a smaller value should we identify those in the audit so that you're fully informed about the items

That you'd be signing off in your ultimate decision around the accounts

Members, that's all I wanted to highlight for your attention.

I'd be happy to take any questions on the plans, should you have any.

Committee, do we have any questions for the auditors?

Councillor Dickard.

The only thing I wanted a little bit more information about is

on the level 3 investments and the risk identified,

how is it that you...

How do you get the hidden private debt from the...

Is it that you go and investigate into the risk involved and then report it back in a

closed session?

How does it work in terms of us knowing what the risk is that could be building in one

of these pooled funds?

So the risk to us in terms of our job is making sure that the financial figures, the value

of those investments is reported correctly.

Now what we're recognising here in terms of risk is that there is some estimation technique

involved.

So particularly for level three assets, a lot of those are often valued in December,

And then they have to be adjusted by the nature of cash flow, so withdrawals or contributions

to those investments that you've made subsequently.

So what we've got to do is look at that process that's been done, particularly by the fund

managers to ensure they've come to the right level, and then to say, okay, is that value

reasonable or not as reported by you.

So that's the risk we're looking at here.

It's the potential that there could have been a mistake here, and therefore the value as

a hole is incorrect in the sense of the pension fund accounts.

Mr. Craig.

Hi.

Thank you.

Just on the materiality, it says one of the factors considered is number of errors in

the prior year.

Were there many errors last year or anything like that?

If you could set that out, that would be useful.

As far as I'm aware from the records handed over to me, there was only one issue that

reported in the prior year and that was just a timing issue so information that

was actually available to us later than you had it so very low number of errors.

Thank you Chair. Oh sorry not you I was just referring to Councillor Craig how very rude of me.

So Councillor Craig had a follow -up but you have to be very quick and then I will come to you.

It was very quick, it was sort of tangentially related.

It was just with the audit differences threshold,

you then said other uncorrected misstatements,

you'd sort of report back to us.

Can I have an example of what that kind of thing might be,

how that would be communicated?

Yeah, so if we identify anything during the audit,

we log that as a misstatement and management have the choice

whether to correct it, if they believe it's right

to correct it, or they could say,

actually, no, we don't want to.

Ultimately, though, the decision to approve the

accounts is of the councillors, so we make

sure we bring that information back to your

information so you are aware of what we might

have raised, what management you might

have been, and so therefore you can make

that decision.

So we set the threshold, which is £1 .5 million.

We might bring items of a lower extent back

should we find them, if we thought they were

qualitatively important for you.

One of the

particular numbers we may consider, for

example, if

numbers over members allowances or contributions related parties might be

Potentially misstated because that might be considered to be more sensitive

So we use a we use degree of judgement here, but 1 .5 million is broadly what we're going to plan to bring back

That's the card

Thank You chair, I may be showing my ignorance here

it's my first meeting of this committee, but and is your remit just to cheque through the

investments set aside of what this

funds doing or do you also cheque through the obligations and the process of making sure

that the 44 ,000 beneficiaries are real, alive and legitimate?

Broadly speaking, no, we don't do that level of work.

that would be more about the controls that are input by your directors, your management,

and for example internal audit. Our responsibility is about making sure the numbers are presented

fairly. Now of course if we found anything that might indicate there was a problem,

we would bring that back to your attention, but that is not our primary goal.

I think that answered the question.

Thank you.

Councillor Arland.

Thank you.

Again, clarification.

Just to get the fees, so I'm looking at page 42, your page 26 I think it is.

So the fees for 2425, that's the 92 ,000.

And then the fees, that's the base fee.

And then the fees for 2526, that's the 998, yes.

And the and then you've got an additional fee of eight and a half thousand for extra working 24 25

And the idea what could you expect it to be higher in 25 26 any idea?

So I don't know what the additional figure may be for 25 26

And the sort of general principle as long as you don't have too many errors and too many issues coming out

Then the lower that additional fee may be but the one thing we have to do in 25 26

is some additional work on behalf of the employers

of the pension fund to look at the quality

of the membership data that went to the actuary

for the purpose of their training or valuation.

So my gut feeling is, well actually I don't have

a gut feeling of what that number of feet will be.

We will work it out once we've done that work.

So it is something I will have to come back to you

at a later date to be able to put a value on it,

I'm afraid.

Okay, thank you.

Wonderful.

I think as we've got so much more, are we now satisfied about that one and can we agree?

Agreed.

Agreed. I don't think it was for decision anyway, but let's be collaborative.

So now we move on to five, update of FIT for the future.

So which is going to be presented to us briefly by the Director of Finance.

Thank you Chair.

So again I will try to be very brief on it.

As some of you will know, the Government have been on an agenda for a number of years in

order to transform how we operate.

That includes bringing in a third party, London CIF, to implement all of our investments.

So that is part of where we are now at and that all of our money has now been transferred

over to their control with the assets for which they are running.

That's only part of what they will do.

And there will be an implementation plan around how they transition.

And that includes some of the work that we will be trying to do when we look at consolidating

all of the underlying funds that there are between the 33 individual pension funds that

sit within them.

And there's an appendix to there.

There is an implementation strategy.

The London CIV, we're here to talk through that, but obviously there are some challenges

we've been having with the IT to get them on board.

So if there are any questions on that, we'll have to do it in the closed session.

So I'll move on to the next point, which is the role of two positions that we now need

to appoint.

Excuse me, my eye is so clear, he was streaming at the moment, so I don't know why.

But so one of the which is we need to appoint a senior responsible officer.

For many funds, the roles for managing the NAA oversight of the fund has been fragmented

into different positions.

Primarily with administration not sitting in the finance department, it's quite often

it's sat with HR.

So they haven't had an individual who oversees all areas of the fund.

The government see that as wrong and they want to have someone who is accountable for

all aspects of everything.

That is actually how we have always operated, certainly for the last 20, 25 years, with

that ongoing scenario with the individual at the directorate level having all of the

channels.

We are required to nominate the individual.

This paper set out by the executive director of finance is to put that under the formal

approach, which is a legal requirement.

We don't need to make it.

And the proposal is for it to be myself and outlining the reasons why I'm currently already doing all of those positions.

It's more challenging for other funds, but you do need to make a decision.

And just to highlight that this is a statutory post.

So the likelihood is that it will implicate the constitution because you've got those statutory posts like the head of paid service,

section 151 officer, monitoring officer going into that.

And that's why those three roles are precluded from being it.

And then there is another role that we also need to appoint, and that is to support you.

And I think some of the decisions on the lengthy debate we've just been having, having an independent person coming in,

will help on that journey as well, and shows you probably why the government wants to have that individual.

Part of the reason for doing that is, in the past we've had someone like Mercer provide support to us.

Now we have to take the principle strategic advice from our pool.

And it seems like how can you take everything with a pool without having some element of independence there?

So that's why you're having this role.

The reason why I've not gone out to recruit and try to propose to do that currently is the detail about what that position is there for has not been overly described.

If it was purely finance and looking at investment return, it'd be nice and simple.

But it's supposed to be much broader than that to talk about governance, to talk about

the challenges we've just been facing.

And I don't want to go out until I know the final detail about what it is that we need.

And that's why I've not, that's why you've seen one, even I've got to do December for

both, I'm only saying let's do one now because it's already there in effect.

The other one, there's quite a bit of work to do I think and I don't want to rush it.

I know this question so I'll stop. Yeah I think that's quite sort of sensible so

we can have Mr. Giuliati who has been, how long have you been member?

2015 I think I've been doing this. 2015. So it's not obligatory we don't have to but it might make sense to do that.

I think actually Councillor Dickerton was first but my question is quick so there you go.

I don't think I have spotted it in here and it may be in the guidance or I may have missed

it.

But who gets to decide who the independent person is?

Is that back to committee with options?

That feels wrong.

Did I need it?

I missed it.

Apologies.

I couldn't see that.

It's a recommendation.

So it actually says delegate authority to the SRO and the chairman who is our senior

responsible officer who may or may not be in the committee.

not before Juliati, depending on what you say, and the chair of this committee to appoint an independent person as a slide in the mechanism to provide a required deadline.

Mr Juliati has quite rightly said that he wants to understand exactly what that role is and I can see that Councillor Gasser was agreeing that we want to know exactly what the role is about.

That doesn't answer my question.

And I can assure you I'm not going to go wild.

I'm not going to go wild, but that's actually what it says.

Yes, my mistakes.

I did read that.

I read the point about commence recruitment,

but that's not conclude the recruitment, I guess.

So that's why I was clarifying.

But OK, you've made it clear.

Thank you.

I think it's very important that we understand

what we want before the experts go out to the market

to see what's available.

And I can show you if there is a an issue. I will make sure that I flag it up

cancer Dikodem

Yeah, you're gonna sound like a broken record

But again, we are delegating authority

To the SRO and the chair of this committee to appoint the independent person of which I don't think

the vast majorities of this committee's views will

Reconcile with so I would like a bit more of this committee being up to feed into the process of the independent

I just said you had already decided to ask the question.

I actually listened to what I said.

Sorry, Councillor Hampton, it is not to do with that.

I don't understand what you said.

I don't know if I trust that process of it just being left up to you and the SRO,

which we are also delegating the responsibility on this recommendation.

I agree with appointing Paul Giudotti as SRO.

I just think, C, the independent person who's going to give us the advice on the tense matters.

And even if it wasn't what we just discussed, if it was something like local investment,

and I think the reason why the LCV has been pushed by the government, which is the growth agenda and

local investment in that independent person will become more and more substantial in the different

navigations we play on fight issue duty and the non -fight issue aspects of this committee. So I

I think it is too big of a role to be just delegated away again like we did at the...

Okay, as I said, I was very clear that we find out what is required first and then we consider the matter.

Councillor.

And then Mr Jugiotty.

Thank you, Chair.

Following up from what Councillor Dickard said, is it possible to broaden that to the Chair and Deputy Chair?

Don't see why we couldn't include the deputy chair. I think was is that that that that that's allowed as I said

I'm not going to go rogue and we would not go rogue. We both are actually

FCA so we understand we would not go rogue on that, but we can't change everything council gasser

We did something like this on Western Riverside waste authority that I was on it was an independent advisor on the audit committee actually

I've never had one before.

And actually there was something about the fit

with the committee, so it's not just about

somebody's skills and experience.

There's also the fit, but I think if there's two of you

looking into that.

But I was also gonna just ask,

what sort of a person is this gonna be?

Because this is new for everybody,

so nobody's gonna have the skills and experience.

So how on earth are we gonna find the right person?

Yeah, and I agree with you.

So I think Mr. Giuliati's gonna speak.

That's why I'm saying this report.

I don't want to do it now.

I want to see what the guidance says that we need now we're told that guidance will be out by the end of June

Part of the reason for delegation and trying to come things in is because there aren't going to be that many people

Who can actually undertake this role and if we delay and wait based on governance and timings of it?

We may miss the opportunity to get the right person coming forward

So that is the reason why the report is written in the manner that it is to delegate to to that

function. Now clearly if they're not the right fit, and we've got a deadline date by December.

Now if when they arrive and they start doing work and they're not fit for purpose, clearly

there's action that this committee could then seek to take during that process. But I'm

just mindful of deadline dates and being able to achieve it. So that's the reason why I

was seeking to get it delegated so that we don't have to wait for those cycles to come

here. Because literally you're only going to get September, by which time we've probably

you've only got the guidance going out to recruit you probably missed that one

so will we get the December I don't know so that that's the rationale for

delegating it are we happy with mr. Giulio T being our our senior responsible

officer I mean if anybody's got any objections do please raise them so I

think that's fine and we will amend we will amend the recommendation C to

include the chair and deputy chair of this committee we happy with that are

we happy with do you want me to read out all the recommendations or we just happen

to agree agreed then we come on to item six quarterly investment performance you

We will all have read your papers.

So very brief.

Mr. Giulotti, so that we can get to questions if we have any.

Yes, again, I'll be quite brief.

And it's a shame that we're not able to get the sieve here, really, to be able to discuss

it because of the technical challenges.

But hopefully, they'll be in the private session when we talk about the other papers.

So hopefully, if there are any questions that you have pertinent for them, that you can

ask them that.

Although it won't directly be on here, but this is just for noting.

As you will see, there are a couple of funds in there that continue to underperform significantly.

And that is, we're not in a position to be able to do anything directly.

Because that is the role of our partner London SIF to manage and oversee.

So when we do get a chance to talk to them, then clearly I would imagine there are some real pertinent questions that we want to look to seek to do in relation to that.

The broader aspects of stock picking clearly is highlighted in some of the report.

When you've got small funds, I've got a very small number of assets sitting within them, like you've got with the Focus Fund with only 25 to 30.

Clearly, the impact that they have on good or bad stock picking is immense.

And that is part of the challenge that we face with some of those funds.

They are looking to bring in some new arrangements and they are looking to have a new blended

active approach where they will have a multi -manager strategy that would look to do things which

should dampen volatility and look at other things, we're still getting the upside benefits

of active.

You'll note we've had the discussions in the past around active versus passive and

we've trimmed our active allocation because of some of the issues that we've identified

in the past with our manager selection.

So I wish I could say it is something that we ought to be looking to do differently.

We recently had our asset allocation review where Mercer have advised and said that our

strategy allocation in their view is right and proper.

Unfortunately, the managers that are there to deliver it are not doing what we need of

them.

So, that would probably be it.

Also, because of the technical difficulties, when we have the closed session, we can get

the representative from London SIF on a laptop which we're not allowed to do in this meeting.

So perhaps if I could suggest some of the pertinent questions we might save for them.

But it is entirely up to you. Any questions on this one? As I said, the London SIL stuff

will be more substantially answered when we can get the laptop out.

I'd just ask about the governance arrangement whereby, because I'm still not certain, and

it's not, I don't think, I want to ask you before we go into the next session is, like,

what happens and what kind of emergency levers do we have if the else if performance continues

to be completely out of whack with the historic performance of our own investments before

we move into it?

I mean, is there a way of registering?

I share your concerns, which is what I want to ask them directly.

I can answer that really. The government have changed the dynamics.

Now where we had Comply or Explain, and we've done things in the past,

as you know with our renewable infrastructure, we tried to get them, they couldn't do it,

so we were still able to go out and do something because they had nothing on the platform.

We could arguably say we had no, there are no confidence and take the risk of

sacking and taking the money out and doing our own. We could have done that before. We can't now. There is no complier explained.

There's just do it now. And we are managed to be required to have everything in

in the pool. That was the recent

pension scheme bill that went through

doing so. We compelled. We have no lever. All that we've got is, you know,

We have a dispute resolution process if the strategy they are wanting to do isn't in line

with us.

That is a positive, that is more than five of the other pools they have got.

We put our challenge in, we put our request into government and to look to try and do

that.

But unfortunately the only option we have got is to find another pool and realistically

how likely is that?

So I think we'll save that one for the closed session.

So the recommendation here is the committee is recommended to note the investment performance

of the pension fund shown in appendices A and B. And I think I'd like to minute it that

the member of the London CIF was not here, but we will be able to address that in the

closed session.

and this is only because of the technology.

It is not trying to diminish our democratic sharing with our residents.

So exclusion of the press and public ask the committee to agree to pass a resolution in the following terms

that under section 100A brackets 4 of the local government act 1972

The press and other members of the public be excluded from the meeting while item A,

8 is being considered because it is likely that exempt information as described in paragraph

3 of part 1 of schedule 2A to the Act would be disclosed to them if they were present.

Are we all content?

We welcome your comments

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Wandsworth Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Joint Pensions Committee - Monday 8 June 2026, 7:15pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Joint Pensions CommitteeMonday, 8th June 2026 at 7:15pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Joint Pensions Committee
Monday, 8th June 2026 at 7:15pm