A report was submitted to update the Authority on progress towards the pooling of the Fund’s assets within the Border to Coast Pool.

The report covered key areas of progress, investment related progress, staffing matters, non-executive directors and tax strategy.

With regard to investments, the Authority were informed that BCPP had proposed to reduce the number of sub-funds at launch.  The issue was that BCPP was proposing to move away from a position agreed with all Funds of mirroring their initial asset allocation.  The Investment Board had discussed the implications in depth at their meeting the previous week and had reluctantly agreed to the proposal but with several conditions.

Cllr Sangar questioned the need for some of the BCPP meeting papers to be in private, for example the tax strategy.  At present the Company did not feel particularly open and transparent.

A Frosdick remarked that during the transitional phase there were numerous sensitive decisions to be made, but agreed that BCPP appeared to be using excessive caution.

The Chair agreed that the matter needed clarification.

G Warwick expressed disappointment that there was no reference anywhere in the papers to Trades Union representation and pointed out that the Unions had seats on the Shadow Advisory Board.  It was important that Trade Unions were involved in their members’ pensions.

The Chair replied that she had made South Yorkshire’s position very clear but unfortunately had lost the vote; the matter would be reviewed in the future.  The Chair suggested that the Unions approach Board members with a view to securing a place on BCPP’s Board.

A Frosdick commented that BCPP’s governance structure had been settled; the Joint Committee’s position was not to pursue the matter any further at this time although the issue would be revisited in due course.

The Chair commented that she had support from other Funds and would keep pressing for Trades Union representation when the time was right.

The Authority discussed the decision of the Joint Committee to agree to the Board’s request to appoint two non-executive directors who would be Shareholder representatives on the Board, i.e. an elected member from any of the Partner Funds.

It was noted that this created a potential conflict of interest and it had already been decided that a Member could not be a member of the Joint Committee and sit on BCPP’s Board.

A Frosdick pointed out that the person did not have to be an Authority Member but could be any elected member with experience of the LGPS.

The local authorities could nominate someone but it was up to them to take their own view.  Some local authorities from other Funds had already decided not to nominate anyone.

The Chair suggested that Members take advice from their Districts and that a paper would be brought to the June meeting of the Authority to make a decision as to whether the Authority should nominate a Member for the post of non-executive director of BCPP.

RESOLVED:

i)            That the Authority notes the progress being made towards BCPP becoming operational.

ii)           That the Authority delegate to the Fund Director, having consulted the advisors, and in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair, the authority to authorise the transition of assets to the BCPP investment pooling structure.