West Ham Councillor Report: November 2015

Councillor Report to West Ham Ward

WEST HAM WARD LABOUR PARTY tel: 07432 150 *** or email John.Gray@newham.gov.uk

 

Ward meeting 5 November 2015 

 

• Leafleting Ward for Sadiq Khan to be London Mayor & door knocking last weekend.
• There is a By-election in Boleyn ward East Ham on 3.12.1.  Veronica Oakeshott is the excellent Labour candidate.
• I attended the memorial service to murdered PC Nina Mackay on 24 October in Arthingworth Street, West Ham. Plan for next year as a wider community event?
• Car parking chaos off the Portway, E15. Need CPZ urgently. Resident Petitions to present to next full council.
• Complaints about closure of Greenway. I have cycled around division and made representations. Planning to meet Newham Cyclists to discuss further.
• Walkabout with residents in Dirleton Road, E15 about Parking, Environmental and ASB.
• Walkabout with residents and Council officers in Brasset Point Tower block about communal repairs, environmental and ASB
• The school governing bodies for Rebecca Cheetham Nursery School and Ranelagh Primary School are merging. (I am an authority governor at RCNS)
• Housing. Key surgery issue. I dread to think what will happen with “pay to stay” and “right to buy” to Housing Associations stealing properties from London Councils to fund election bribes in Tory shires, who have got rid of all their council housing.
• Section 106 money taken away to fund so called “start-up” homes that in London can only be afforded by the rich.
• Investigating complaints that West Ham homeless families kept in Bed and Breakfast hotels beyond statutory limits and impact of Council tax demands on low income families.
• I moved the UNISON motion on “The Housing Crisis” at the TUC Congress this year.
• Tax credits. Never thought I would say thanks for the House of Lords. West Ham worse hit in the country. Strivers and hard working families’ tax credits being taken away to fund tax breaks for millionaires.
• Disgusted to see that West Ham FC Vice Chairman, Baroness Brady, voted with the government to take away tax credits from working families, even though around 40% of working families rely on the credits and nearly half of all children in Newham are growing up in poverty according to the Campaign to End Child Poverty.
• Planning. “Stop notice” on Plaistow Road Muslim Education and Community Centre. I don’t think that the State should interfere in the right to worship except in exceptional circumstances.
• Voted against council accounts 2014/2015 on Investment and Accounts Committee, since I was not given the opportunity to attend joint meeting with audit and question auditors. Also not satisfied with budget governance.
• Pensions for mayoral advisers. Do not believe that at a time of savage cuts to our budget, mayor advisers (or backbench Cllrs) should be gaining a 14% increase in allowances. Attended first Council Scrutiny “call in” in possibly 10 years over issue.
• Special purpose vehicle for Council pension scheme. Spoke against at cabinet. Public money spent before any scrutiny. Also attended “call in”.
• LOBOs. ‎We are spending millions of pounds in excess interest rates on capital loans. We are being ripped off by Banks. I have contributed to a joint article on Labour list and worked with Cllr Whitworth on disclosure.
• I have complained to the Council CEO and the monitoring officer about the continued refusal of Council officers to disclose important information on financial matters to elected members for no substantive reason.
• Finally. Labour Party conference and leadership. Jeremy Corbyn and Tom Watson deserve a chance to develop and build the Party in order to win the General election in 2020.

Vote against Keith Hellawell as director of Sports Direct

"VOTE AGAINST resolution 4 to re-elect Keith Hellawell as a Director of Sports Direct International PLC at the AGM 9/9/15

We believe that voting against the chair Keith Hellawell is appropriate in order to send a message about our concerns about management and employment practices, and weak corporate governance at Sports Direct, which the chair must take responsibility for.

Trade Union Share Owners (TUSO) is a group of investors representing the financial assets of the labour movement and committed to long-term responsible investment. We collectively have over £1bn in assets under management and our membership includes affiliated unions that represent workers at Sports Direct.

We urge you to VOTE AGAINST resolution 4 to re-elect Keith Hellawell as a Director of Sports Direct at the Annual General Meeting on the 9thSeptember for the following reasons:

The company’s questionable corporate governance and employment practices are long-standing issues that pose potential risks to investors. Yet the current chair has not addressed them despite concerns being raised repeatedly by various stakeholders, further he has been criticized by MPs for his lack of knowledge of important events at subsidiary USC.

Voting against Keith Hellawell would communicate that shareholders concerns can no longer be ignored and that Sports Direct has to change the way they do business if the long term reputation and success of the company are going to be sustained.

MPs have said that the chairman Keith Hellawell of Sports Direct is presiding over a FTSE 100 company run like a “backstreet outfit” where executives made deals behind the board’s back, withheld payments to force suppliers and landlords to the negotiating table and failed to consult with staff over the pre-pack administration of its fashion chain USC.

For many investors and the wider public, Sports Direct is synonymous with the use of zero hours contracts and other controversial management practices. Sports Direct was even the subject of an investigation by Dispatches on Channel Four in April this year.

The risks posed by the use of zero hours contracts and other management practices revealed by Dispatches need to be disclosed to shareholders, and it is clear that investor expectations are growing. A report issued by the National Association of Pension Funds in June recommended that PLCs disclose the breakdown of full-time, part-time and “contingent” workers. The NAPF specifically highlighted the use of zero hours contracts as a potential risk that investors need to assess.

Shareholders are aware that much of Sports Directs workforce is employed on zero hours contracts, yet continue to be left in the dark about the extent of such practices. The chair has acknowledged that this is an issue by referring to casual employment in his statement in the annual report. However the 48 words that chair spends on the topic provides no further information. In the Corporate Social Responsibility section of the annual report there is neither any commentary on zero hours contracts or a breakdown of numbers in each type of employment.

We believe that the workers of any company are their greatest asset and they should be treated accordingly, something that we must ensure Sports Direct follows.

UNISON Capital Stewards Website

I have just signed into the new UNISON website for Capital Stewards and will start posting some links and articiles over the next few days. The site is currently only for UNISON activists and is password protected. If you are a UNISON pension trustee or Local Government Pension scheme Committee or Board member, you can apply for access via your UNISON regional contact.

This is the introduciton on the site "Capital Stewards has been designed as a knowledge and campaigning unit for trade union activists. Here you will find materials, films and news that will help you understand the world of pension funds, investing and broader economic ideas. Around the world pension funds and their representatives are making investments and engaging on a wide range of issues from worker's rights and pay to the environment".

The Youtube video "its our Money - the Power of Pension Funds" explains more about capital stewardship.

Hat tip Mr Meech

"Alternative Financing Proposals for the Newham Pension Fund"

(This sounds pretty teckie and boring but I have serious concerns about this proposal which you can find here and was agreed yesterday at Newham Cabinet. I circulated this email to all Cllrs with a copy of my submission to the overview and scrunity committee meeting on "Pensions for Members" Call in).

"Dear Colleagues

I hope to attend at least part of the Cabinet meeting tonight but due to work commitments I cannot be certain. Please see attached document on "Pensions for members" item that I submitted to the Overview & Scrutiny “Call in” yesterday evening.  

I also have concerns about the proposal in item 6 “Alternative Financing Proposals for the Newham Pension Fund”. These concerns are :-

1.       The Government announced in the budget that if the 101 different local authority pension funds do not pool their funds they will be forced to do so by the Government. It would be unwise and a waste of public money to set up an Alternative  Financing proposal if the Government is about to force funds to merge. It may provoke legal action by the Government as well.

2.       When funds are merged we can expect huge cost savings and improvement in return which will be far more that any projected savings from the alternative proposed vehicle (even if it works).

3.       I understand that the proposal will cost £500,000 to set up and it is a significant cost at a time of savage cuts.

4.       I do not understand why this proposal has not been before the Investment and Accounts Committee (and the Pension board) for consultation and initial approval? The committee may decide that the proposal is not suitable for the fund and again, public money will be wasted?

5.       Finally, I understand that such complex alternative vehicles are high risk and eye watering expensive.  After our dreadful experience with LOBO loans we should be extra careful not in invest in such complex products without the highest level of scrutiny.

         I therefore hope that the Mayor will withdraw this proposal and send it for consideration by Investment and Accounts Committee (and Pension Board)

Regards

John Gray (Councillor)

(All Newham Cllrs have been asked to suggest ways to save money and cut costs. I will be publishing posts such as this on possible savings that can be achieved without harm to residents. So far this amounts to £1.1 million. £500k for not going ahead with this alternative proposal and £600k for not giving some Cllrs pensions).

Update: Professional Pensions (and a leading financial figure) have taken up this issue. See here

Labour will get rid of Katie Hopkins

Hat tip to Cambridgeshire University Labour club for this poster.

Katie Hopkins is the Sun columnist who recently called migrants "cockroaches"..."feral humans" and "doesn't care if migrants die while trying to leave their countries by boat" " even if she was shown “coffins and bodies floating in water” she would not be moved.

This was in response to the 400 migrants - men, women and children who drowned last week.

I was due once to debate pensions with this person on Radio 5 Live. However thankfully she pulled out of the interview. Imagine being in the same room as someone who thinks like this. 

Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) Governance Regulations 2014

(These are my personal comments I sent on 15th August to the Department Communities and Local Government consultation on their proposed LGPS draft regulations on governance. These regulations are due to be in force by October 2014. For what it is worth - I think they are a complete dogs dinner. Read why.)

"I have been an observer then member nominated representative on a London Local Government Pension fund since 1996 (and contributor since 1993). Lately I have also been an admitted body representative on that fund. I have also been an elected Councillor member of another London pension committee since 2010 and an employer nominated trustee on a private sector open defined benefit scheme.

I am responding as an individual and these comments are in my personal capacity only.

I must admit to being surprised at the statement next to the "impact assessment" that these regulations have no impact on business nor the voluntary sector.  As someone who also works in the voluntary sector I think that for organisations who are admitted bodies of the LGPS (including private employers) that the possible impact of these regulations is significant.  Especially on deficits and employer contributions. I understand that up to 25% of LGPS members do not work directly for local authorities.

I must confess to being very disappointed with the draft regulations. Instead of adopting the proven private sector pension trustee model of employers and employee representatives being jointly responsible and working in partnership to run their schemes, we are going to have overlapping and confusing 2-tier governance arrangements.

The proposed draft regulations themselves are contradictory and conflicting.  The overriding purpose of pension boards was supposed to be about making sure that the local government pension scheme as a whole is transparent, run efficiently and gives value for money. Unless the scheme nationally contains costs and maximises a responsible return then good funds will be brought down by the badly managed funds.

Employers will only pay a maximum of 13% contributions for future service and if nationally this cost ceiling is breached then this means that employee contributions will have to rise or benefits reduced. Which will then result in employees leaving the scheme and put its long term future at risk.

The huge cost of meeting existing liabilities must be kept to a minimum as local authorities face further cuts to budgets.

While not being too restrictive the regulations must ensure that the pension boards meet at regular times, are accountable, have sufficient resources to do their job and most importantly must have the legal powers to make sure that the funds are run properly.

I understand that there are potential legal challenges to the whole governance structure due to a failure of the government to implement European directives on pension funds?  If this happens this whole process could prove to be a waste of time and money.

I do not understand why there can't be one governance board with 50/50 employer and employee representation as was originally intended? There are far too many barriers to the Secretary of State approving joint committees.  Even if s/he does then the inherent contradictions of holding a "decision making" and "assist" (or even scrutiny) meeting at the same time are likely to prove insurmountable.

Nor can I understand why councillors cannot be members of the board as employer representatives? What is the conflict?

Who indeed can be "employer representatives" on a pension board? Since if council officers are to be the employer representatives there is a possible further conflict since I understand that officers cannot be members of council committees? Has there been legal advice on this point?

The requirement that members of the board have relevant experience and capacity is unnecessary and counter productive.  Why should public sector pension schemes be treated differently that private sector? In the private sector all trustees have up to 6 months to gain relevant skills and knowledge. You do not need to be a financial expert or professional to be effective on a pension board. There is too much "herding" in the LGPS. In fact it is an advantage to have non professionals who will challenge the status quo and ask difficult questions.

I think that as a matter of principle we should be supporting equality duties being part of our remit and I do not think that this will be a too onerous a commitment.

While it is an improvement on the existing ad hoc system I think that the proposed structure and regulations is frankly a mess. While there is a time tabling issue due to enacted legislation the national pension board ought to be reviewing the whole issue of governance as a matter of urgency.

The recent legal advice that found there is no statutory under pinning of the LGPS if a fund was to fail is yet another powerful reason to make sure that all funds are run efficiently and  are well managed.

John Gray

"Pensions will not exist by 2050"

It seems that the Daily Telegraph has a silly season in December as well as August (some would argue it actually lasts 12 months).

Michael Johnson, a research fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies is quoted here as warning that private pensions will soon cease to exist since young people see having immediate access to money more important than long term retirement plans.

I need to check with Michael that he has not been misquoted since the Telegraph has been writing some complete hysterical drivel about pensions lately. The reasoning is also a bit odd and Michael is usually pretty "bang on" about private pensions (not public sector pensions).

Young people have always wanted ready access to their money and been reluctant to save for your retirement. That is why you and your employer need incentives to join a pension and (like taxes) for it to be made compulsory. 

Also young (and older) people are not being completely stupid about not saving for their pensions. This is because for many the pension they are currently offered or have access to is just completely rubbish. They are being ripped off for a hugely expensive product that offers them no certainty in retirement.

While I think everyone should save for their pensions I can understand why so many make the understandable (and even rational?) choice not to save.

Auto-enrolment and universal pensions will make a difference. But unless people have the confidence to invest in a product that gives them some sort of guarantee of financial security in their old age then I think many won't bother. This future burden on the taxpayer should be the key issue for the Telegraph.

 I suspect that Michael is being polemic in order to bring attention to a real serious problem.

Yet his reported solution is wrong. Saving in a short term ISA is not the answer but an affordable and sustainable defined benefit scheme for the private sector is.  It is also going to have to be compulsory (at some stage).

Unless we sort this out I suspect we will soon be seeing future articles glamorising the workhouse for pensioners.

National Association of Pension Funds Local Authority Conference 2012

This was very informative and well organised conference taking place during an absolutely crucial time for the future of the local government pensions scheme (LGPS). I was there as a Councillor and member of the Borough LGPS Investment and Accounts committee.

I did “twitter” (in my case a very apt term?) during the conference (see hash tag @grayee and #napf).
The NAPF had amongst many other speakers the minster responsible for the LGPS, Bob Neill MP, the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, Charlie Bean; the Chair of the Local Government Association, Sir Merrick Cockell (who in a Q&A I referred to as “Michael”) and from the unions, GMB national secretary Brian Strutton.

The Chair of the NAPF is Joanne Segers. By coincidence the first ever trade union pension course I ever went on was delivered by her father, TUC tutor Terry Segers. Proper old school ex-fire brigade union.

Considering the number of forthright and opinionated individuals present at the conference, the Q&A sessions were quite quiet, which gave a opportunity to a certain gobby part time politician and union rep to somewhat hog the floor during questions.

Key issues to me from the speeches and seminars were:- how Housing associations are “gagging to build new homes” which if happened could help us get out of recession like it did in 1930’s; the real problem in pensions is not in the public sector but that private sector pensions were destroyed by various incompetents; if you truly want diversity on company boards why not have employee reps on them? Are fund advisers really interested in good governance and making company boards accountable? It’s a “no brainer that LGPS should share services" (if so why not just merge?); in the current LGPS if you earn £150k per year you pay less in percentage terms net than if you earn £15k pa (this is wrong, wrong, wrong); What is the collective term for Actuaries? Answer “An invoice”; the new proposed £2 billion infrastructure fund and LGPS governance (a possible national Local Government Pensions Board?)

There was clearly an expectation by speakers that the future of the LGPS negotiations would have been finalised by now. But there is some last minute hic-cups. This is immensely frustrating but I suppose they do want to make sure, as far as possible, that there is no misunderstanding or ambiguities about the “agreement”. The ultra left trade union cry babies (the so called 0.8%ers) are of course still weeping tears at the prospect of no more strike chasing to bring about the revolution but we should have the final offer very soon.

It was good to see at the final session that the conference applauded DCLG pensions lead, Terry Crossley, who is retiring from the civil service. I have crossed swords (politely) with Terry for the past 10 years or so over beneficiary representation on the LGPS. I wish him well in his retirement and told him that if a deal is reached on a new look LGPS then he should have a new part time job and go out and sell the model to the private sector who are in desperate need of affordable and sustainable defined benefit pension schemes. 

The Enlightened Shareholder

Last week I went to the launch at the House of Commons of the report "The Enlightened Shareholder: Clarifying investors'

fiduciary duties" by Fair Pensions.

The speakers included "Professor John Kay, who is currently leading a review which looks into long-termism in the UK equities market; Saker Nusseibah, Acting CEO of Hermes; Roger Urwin, Global Head of Investment Content at Towers Watson and Baroness Jeannie Drake".  Fair Pensions CEO, Catherine Howarth, chaired the meeting and its author, Christine Berry presented the report.

The big issue is whether or not the "fiduciary duty" of shareholder representatives (and trustees) ought to be legally redefined to deal with "crony capitalism and excessive executive pay". Pension trustees (and member nominated representatives) still come across advisers who tell them (completely wrongly I think) that  their only role is to "maximise returns" of the scheme regardless of the impact it has on stakeholders, the wider economy and even the long term interests of the scheme. Which is clearly stupid and frankly bonkers. But it happens and it needs to be dealt with.

I think this problem is widely recognised but there is the usual dispute about the solution. Should this be by statutory regulation or some sort of a voluntary code? As pointed out in the debate we have tried the voluntary approach for a long, long time. It has clearly failed due to agent self interests and conflicts. We need to regulate.

Why you should join your company pension scheme NOW! (it's use it or lose it)

It's a no brainer actually (apologies to Homer Simpson whose scan in on right does show he has a brain although it is very small and rarely used e.g tax payers alliance supporter). There are millions and millions of workers in the UK who have access to a pension provided by their employer but they have not joined the scheme.

Sometimes it is because the scheme is pretty rubbish and that there are no real incentives given by the employer to encourage their staff to join. Yet often this is not the case and workers are losing vast amounts of money each year by not joining.

The 25% apparently eligible to join the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) who haven't are losing at least 14% of their wages each year. They also even pay more income tax and national insurance.

However, the real people at risk from not joining their scheme NOW are in defined contribution (aka Group stakeholder or personal pensions) company schemes whose employers pay reasonable contributions if the members also pay something into it. Many of scheme are pretty good. Not as good as say the LGPS but nothing to turn your nose up upon. Decent employers know that any decent pension will cost a lot of money and they have to play their part in providing funding.

The risk ironically to these "decent" schemes is the introduction of pension autro enrolement next year. Enrolement is a "good" thing and will mean that nearly all workers in the UK for the first time will be automatically put into a pension scheme.  What is worrying some employers is that this may mean that the total bill for pensions will rise. If auto enrolling works (and there is some doubt) then instead of 25% of the workforce being in the company pension scheme this may rise to say 50% or more. Potentially doubling the pension payroll.

What many people fear is that some companies (including ones that use to provide non contributory final salary schemes free to all their employees in a more enlightened age) are planning to either slash and burn existing contribution rates or introduce 2nd tier pensions for employees who have not joined the existing scheme. We need to oppose all attempts to reduce contributions. The more in the scheme the more difficult it will be to cut it.

This is a call to arms to all union reps to "encourage" (we cannot give specific individual financial advice) our members to consider joining their scheme.  If they don't, it may not be around much longer. Use it or lose it.