Agenda item

a) Michael Hudson asked the Chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee whether the Post Implementation Governance Review Working Party would consider a full review of the work of the Policy and Resources Committee, including its terms of reference and its powers, and whether any of its work could or should be undertaken by another Committee.

 In response, the Chairman explained that the Working Party would take stock of the new governance arrangements and explore how they were working. He confirmed that this would include the operation of the Policy and Resources Committee in that the Working Party would review the changes made to its constitution, functions and its terms of reference by the governance review in the same way as it did for any other Committee. He added that each Committee would be asked to comment on how the new arrangements were working in practice, in respect of itself and, in response to that, the Policy and Resources Committee would consider whether any of its functions or responsibilities that came about as a result of the governance review could advantageously be undertaken by another Committee. He added that the Working Party would then consider the views of the Policy and Resources Committee alongside the views of all Committees and, should recommendations be made for changes to terms of references or constitutions of any Committee, it would be for the Court to decide upon these. He concluded that the Court did not extend the work of the Post Implementation Governance Review Working Party to any other or new areas of governance nor had it asked for a separate review of the Policy and Resources Committee to be undertaken.

In response to a supplementary question from Deputy Robin Eve, the Chairman reiteratedthat the review would look at the changes made to the Policy and Resources Committee’s constitution, functions and terms of reference as a result of the governance review.

In response to a further supplementary from Alex Bain-Stewart, the Chairman explained that the Working Party would review the matters that were changed as a result of the governance review. He added that, should Members wish for a comprehensive review of the work of the Policy and Resources Committee to be undertaken, they would need to request it when the results of the Working Party’s deliberations were reported to the Court.

b) Deputy Edward Lord asked the Chairman of the Establishment Committee to outline the steps the City of London Corporation took to protect the pension position of Members of staff who retire and were subsequently invited back to provide cover on a casual or more than casual basis.

In response, the Chairman explained that, on retirement, all members of the pension scheme were written to, individually, making it very clear that any pensioner who is re-employed by an employer offering the local government pension scheme would have their pension abated. The letter also informed the individual that it was their responsibility to notify both their new employer that they were in receipt of a pension and inform the City that they were in employment. He added that all members of the pension scheme should already be aware that, if they are re-employed, the value of their new salary, plus pension, must not exceed their retirement salary and if it did, the pension must be abated accordingly and there was no discretion on this. He considered that, as this letter was issued, there was no doubt as to the rules, or indeed, where the responsibility lay. He was aware that a Honorable Member had been contacted about a specific case where a complaint had been made and that this was going through a dispute resolution procedure. The first stage under any dispute was an examination of the facts by an external, independent person. After this, the case must be reviewed again by the administering authority and, after that, if an individual was still dissatisfied, the case may be referred to the Pensions Ombudsman. He added that he would be quite happy to review the case in question.

In response to a supplementary question from Mr Martinelli regarding the particular sensitivities of the case, the Chairman reiterated that he would review the case to ensure that the correct procedure had been followed and, in response for a supplementary question from Mr Mooney as to the what some might see as futile nature of such exchanges, the Chairman declined to comment.