Agenda item

The Committee noted the update.

Mrs Williams confirmed that most of the detail covered at this update would be explained further at the induction training for new Committee members. Mrs Williams highlighted the following key points:

-       The team were on track regarding the business plan as outlined in paragraph 1.01.

-       In regards to the current developments in paragraph 1.02, progress was made on the McCloud programme (as attached in appendix 2). She explained that McCloud was an age discrimination case, which resulted in the need to recalculate some historical benefits and change processes going forward, but to do so they needed to collect further scheme member data from employers. Given the amount of work involved, the Fund have a dedicated McCloud project team who are currently focussed on correcting any impacted member records once they have received data from employers.

-       The Fund were on plan against the actuarial valuation timescales and as mentioned above, the team were in the process of cleansing data and providing it to Mercer.

-       As mentioned in paragraph 1.03, given the pay award for April 2021 was only awarded in March 2022, the team had to recalculate member benefits awarded over the past 12 months. This resulted in a large amount of work and this scenario was likely to be repeated when the 2022/23 pay award was finalised.

-       Each year pensions in payment are increased so the team are required to apply this increase in time for the April pension payment and communicate the increases to all pensioners. This was another significant piece of work for the team.

-       Members are automatically enrolled or can enrol in the 50/50 scheme, which was a more affordable option for members as an alternative to opting out completely. There has been a slight increase to the numbers of members opting out the scheme, which could be due to economic pressures, and so the team added further details regarding the 50/50 scheme on the opt out form. The team will monitor opt-out numbers going forward to consider what else can be done.

Mrs Williams explained that the 50/50 scheme permitted scheme members to pay half the contribution rate and in return they would receive half of the benefits for that period albeit death and ill-health cover was unaffected. The 50/50 scheme provided a more affordable option for members and so it was important to highlight this option to members who were considering opting out from the main scheme.

Cllr Rutherford said that he believed that members may not understand the value of the pension scheme and the value of staying in it and wondered whether there was any simple communication, which could be circulated highlighting the benefits, including tax implications, that they should consider before they opt-out.

Mrs Williams agreed with the sentiment and highlighted the lack of appreciation of amount the employer contributes on the members’ behalf and also areas such as the death benefits. Ensuring members understood this when making the decision to opt-out is very important although it can be a complex message to get across. To help, the administration team since added key information on the 50/50 scheme at the top of the opt-out form. The team had also liaised with employers on the communications of this and were aiming to signpost this better on the website. She mentioned that the team were in the middle of interviews for the vacancy available for the communication officer role, given that the Fund wanted to improve in this area.

Mrs McWilliam had asked a communications specialist at Aon about this matter and their view was to focus on the members who were thinking of opting out.  Doing a wider communication to all members could have a negative impact as it would highlight the ability to opt-out of the scheme.

Cllr Rutherford asked whether the Fund were doing any impact analysis on the type of members leaving the scheme or going 50/50 to identify where and how communications could be focussed. Mrs Williams said that this was not something the Fund had done, but they are now keeping records to better understand this. She noted that the Fund do not always know who has opted out and so the employers also need to consider this.

Mrs Carney said from a Flintshire County Council perspective they are monitoring this and now proactively speaking to those opting out to ensure they understand their options and the implications. She has been suggesting this to the other Councils too.

As mentioned earlier, Mr Latham sits on the PLSA LGPS committee and talks directly to the LGA. He said they recognise this issue but it was not clear what they were going to do about it. Given that schemes did not have clear sight of demographics and types of members, the only thing schemes can do is target communication effectively. Mr Latham hoped that the opt-out rates would become a national consideration as it was affecting all schemes. Mrs McWilliam agreed and said SAB had mentioned it as part of a recent conference.

On the last bullet point of paragraph 1.03, Mrs Williams completed a recruitment and retention survey as requested by the LGA, given that Funds were struggling to recruit and retain staff. The results would be shared nationally.

Lastly, paragraph 1.04 and 1.05 addressed the day to day workflow and the number of projects the team were involved in. She emphasised the team’s hard work to keep on top of the increased workloads to ensure the deadlines were met.

RESOLVED:

The Committee noted the update.