Agenda item

63.1.     The Board considered a report on the outcomes of the Communications review completed by the Head of Communications and Marketing.

63.2.     TD welcomed the Communications Review but asked for reassurance that in future people who submit questions will be given sufficient answers to them and not just pointed to the website for answers.

63.3.     SK said that a correspondence policy would be an important step in setting out what people who contact the Fund can expect in the form of a response. Any responses beyond referral to any online resource would need to be proportionate and manageable within the resources of the Fund, for example, people may receive a response to a question but not necessarily be given the opportunity to engage in a long conversation with officers where there is a disagreement over a position on pension investment. Any correspondence policy would also need to define whether members of the Fund can expect a different response to members of the public or journalists. 

63.4.     TD asked what the evidence was for the comment in the Communication Review “there’s no evidence that most ESPF members or other stakeholders consider divestment from fossil fuel companies a pressing issue”.

63.5.     SK said that she would clarify how the Head of Communications reached that conclusion. SK argued that the Fund does not receive many questions from its members relating to issues such as divestment, despite the size of the Fund, and that most questions appear to be from local residents, although there is an overlap between the two groups. SK said the Fund has not sought to ask its members for its views on subjects such as this, which it could potentially do. It would be, however, extremely difficult for the Fund to act on the views of its membership where it could have a negative financial impact on the Fund. This is because it is a defined benefit scheme with fiduciaries (the Pension Committee) who have a legal duty to act in the best interests of the members (not in their own interest or of others) and should aim to receive a return on investment that can provide the benefits for its members. A defined contribution scheme, such as a private pension, may have greater scope as members can have a choice over where there contributions are invested and the   financial return they receive is based on their selected investment strategy.  

63.6.     TD felt that any correspondence policy should take into account that local residents are council tax payers and therefore have a right to comment on how the Fund’s assets are invested and that the Fund should consider their views and respond to them when appropriate to do so. He also asked whether there is an annual survey to members asking their views of the Fund.

63.7.     SK explained that the Fund does conduct an annual questionnaire, but it has until now been reliant on Orbis PAT setting the questions. The results were received last week and are currently being analysed. Now that the PAT will be coming in-house, there is no reason why the questions could not be amended and cover different topics. She added that many private pensions provide annual updates to Members on key information – including investments, administration updates, and regulation changes – and this could also be considered in future for ESPF members.

Diana Pogson (DP) commented that the Communications Review was timely and welcomed the correspondence policy as a very good idea that the Fund should develop. She said that it was important the website is clear but cautioned against spending much effort branding the Fund, as people are more concerned about finding information they need rather than seeing a new logo. 

63.8.     SK agreed and said the existing logo is good, albeit it may need a colour change. She said it was more important that there is consistent branding, for example, re-branding administrative services as they move out of Orbis and back in-house. SK said there is a need for a website with sections for both members and employers and that people who contact the Fund receive a timely response that is clear and consistent.

63.9.     Lynda Walker (LW) said the Fund was right to prioritise issues such as resourcing and governance, but she was glad to see it now turns its attention to communications, which have been inadequate for some time. She reiterated DP’s view that any rebranding need not be too glossy but should meet the needs of people seeking information on their pensions and must be in plain English, given the complexity of the pension arrangements She advised that online access is a major problem for people with visual impairments and other disabilities and that too much information can make it difficult for people to access. The Board members could help advise officers whether draft documents produced in response to the Communications Review met the needs of users.  LW observed that it is often difficult for the Pensions team to separate out whether people contacting the Fund are local residents or members, so it may not be worthwhile giving them separate communication channels so that questions are responded to  appropriately, particularly those   relating to investment.

63.10.  The Board RESOLVED to:

1) note the report;

2) make the following comments to the Committee on the Communications Review:

-       The Board is very supportive of the review and its recommendations, including the proposal for a correspondence policy and the proposal to recruit a communications manager for the Pensions Team; and

-       The Board observes that there appears to be two different audiences who need to be communicated with – the Fund members and the wider population, including the press – and it should be decided whether any new communications officer will focus on just members, with the Press Office retaining responsibility for wider communications or whether the new person is responsible for effective communications to both audiences.

3) agree to establish a working group, comprising all Members of the Board, to comment on draft webpages, branding, and other documents arising from the Communications Review; and

4) request a future report containing the draft terms of reference of the working group.