There were none.

Any Member of the Committee, or any other Member present in the meeting room, who has a disclosable pecuniary interest, in a matter to be considered at the meeting is reminded to disclose the interest to the meeting and to leave the room while any discussion or vote on the matter takes place.

Members are also reminded that if they have any other significant interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting, whether registered or not, which they feel should be declared in the public interest, such interests should be declared to the meeting. In such circumstances Members should consider whether a member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard the interest as so significant that it is likely to prejudice their consideration or decision making. If the Member considers that to be the case, they should leave the room while any discussion or vote on the matter takes place.

There were none.

The minutes were accepted as an accurate record and signed by the Chair.

Anerley Smith summarised the report and highlighted that the processing of pension benefit statements had run smoothly.

She drew attention to the poor performance of Strictly Education, a new payroll provider for 4 RBKC schools. Following warnings, fines had been served on Strictly Education of £2,000 for each school’s data it had failed to provide since March 2024. This level of fine was similar to those imposed by other local authorities with schools where Strictly Education was the payroll provider. She reported that head teachers at schools concerned had been informed of this failure. The board noted that outsourcing payroll provision to other companies had worked successfully.

Cllr Lindsay, noted he was a member on the Family and Children’s Services Select Committee, and advised Anerley to contact Ian Heggs if no resolution was forthcoming by mid-November and asked to be copied in to email exchanges. Jagdeep Birdi commented that Strictly Education was not the payroll provider for the schools he represented. Cllr Lindsay noted that as this issue was likely to impact on the accuracy of figures, it should be raised with auditors.

Action: Anerley Smith, Cllr Lindsay

Anerley reported progress on system updates (para 2.1c of the report) was making it easier to track key performance indicators.

The board noted that complaints would be reported in key performance indicators submitted to the February 2025 board meeting.

Action: Anerley Smith

The report was noted.

Julia Stevens commented on the update. She highlighted the 4 November discussion by the Investment Committee of the Investment advisor’s (Mercer) review of Baillie Gifford’s long-term performance as the active fund manager. [The link to the review report had been copied to the board in the previous week.]

She noted that recent weaker performance in 2022 had led to Baillie Gifford to take corrective action in the way it managed risk. The Committee had agreed with the Investment advisor’s recommendation that Baillie Gifford’s impressive long-term record justified it remaining as the active fund manager for the RBKC Fund.

Julia Stevens noted the 2025 valuation of the funding level, currently the highest of LGPS funds, was expected to drop slightly as assumptions and updates including market movements, would impact on actuarial calculations. This would lead to similar small falls in funding levels for other local government pension schemes.

The report and appendices were noted.

Julia Stevens commented that the Tri-borough pension schemes continued to look at improving the risk register dashboard.

Julia noted recent updates to the General Code of Practice and presented a report that would be completed in the upcoming months to show compliancy with the updates. Whilst confident the Fund was already compliant, the Pensions Regulator (TPR) template laid out what should be reviewed, how frequently and these requirements fed into the improvement of policies. The TPR aimed to make funds the best they could be for stakeholders. She encouraged the board to feedback on the risk register and TPR template.

Action: Board Members

Sohal Rawal asked if the business continuity plans of key partner organisations were considered when developing the fund’s continuity plans. Officers were asked to feedback on this matter at the next board meeting.

Action: Julia Stevens

The report was noted.

Julia Stevens introduced the report and reminded the board that the closing cash balance was held for direct property purchases. In response to Jagdeep Birdi’s query, Julia Stevens commented that recent stamp duty changes would be factored into the assessment of property purchases and the performance requirements.

The report was noted.

Julia Stevens introduced the report and drew attention to the minor recommendations in para 1.7 in the external audit to confirm both points had been responded to by officers. The RBKC report had been one of the first to be signed off by auditors and the final version would be published on the council’s website on 1 December.

The board asked for further clarification on the 9% increase in investment management fees as detailed in para 3.5 in the report.

Action: Julia Stevens

Officers encouraged board members to submit any recommendations on the report before 1 December.

Action: Board Members

The report was noted.

(Each written report on the Agenda detailed above:

(i)     was made available for public inspection from the date of the Agenda;

(ii)    incorporates a list of the background papers which (i) disclose any facts or matters on which that report, or any important part of it, is based; and (ii) have been relied upon to a material extent in preparing it.  (Relevant documents which contain confidential or exempt information are not listed.); and

(iii)    may, with the consent of the Chairman and subject to specified reasons, be supported at the meeting by way of oral statement or further written report in the event of special circumstances arising after the despatch of the Agenda.)

There were none.