Saturday, September 26, 2009

Consultation on LGPS Governance Reform.

These comments below are part of my response to a CLG consultation on the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) governance arrangements.

It does appear to be a little boring but we are talking about managing over £100 billion and the pensions of over 3 million people.

The two main National UNISON arguments are:-

"Ministers must introduce the full requirements of Articles 8 and 18 of the EU Directive 41/2003 Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision (There should be separate accounting from employer and funds should always act in the beneficiaries interests)

Ministers should replace that the voluntary exercise of improving member representation by a ‘Best Practice Guidance’ with statutory scheme member representation" (The voluntary approach to good governance has failed and we need proper statutory guidance)

All UNISON Local Government branches are encouraged to reply by 30th Sept.

I've added "There have been welcome improvements in member representation in the London LGPS but there is still a very long way to go. There are still far too many London funds that do not have any form of member nominated representation; some funds still treat them as observers who have no formal rights at all. None of the London funds meet the best practice standards found elsewhere in the LGPS “family” (e.g. Environment agency).

Some funds are still refusing to allow any form of democratic member representation. One London LGPS recently refused to allow even an observer on its pension panel since the proposed nominee had not previously served on a panel and therefore had “nothing to offer the panel”. While others just simply refuse to respond properly to our requests.

This is wrong since this is LGPS member’s money not the employers - it is their direct contributions and deferred pay. If it is accepted as a very positive thing that there is effective member representation in the private sector funded schemes then why are we in the LGPS being treated so differently?

There is no effective regulatory guidance on representation or competency. Some schemes have never provided any structured training for lay or elected members despite the fact they are legally responsible for overseeing hundreds of millions of pounds. An occasional briefing by a scheme advisor is not enough.


There is a lack of any firm guidance on facility time for employees to be representatives. Therefore it is often very difficult to get time off to be trained or attend meetings and to properly prepare. This adds to the difficulty of recruiting and retaining active member nominated representatives.

No comments: