Agenda and minutes

Members were advised that Councillor Grahl was attending the meeting in place of Councillor Tatler with a vacancy also currently existing for the Liberal Democrats member on the Committee.

No other apologies or notification of alternative membership had been received.

Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, the nature and existence of any relevant disclosable pecuniary or personal interests in the items on this agenda and to specify the item(s) to which they relate.

There were no declarations of interests made during the meeting.

To hear any deputations for which requests have been submitted by members of the public in accordance with Standing Order 67.

There were no deputations received.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on Monday 15 July 2024 as a correct record.

It was RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meeting held on Monday 15 July 2024 be approved as a correct record.

To consider any matters arising from the minutes of the previous meeting.

There were no matters arising.

To receive the following petition for which notice has been received in accordance with Standing Order 66:

Call on Brent Council’s Pension Fund to Invest not Divest

6.1      Presentation of a Petition – Invest not Divest

Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Chair) welcomed Karen Flaum to the meeting, who had been invited to speak in support of a petition containing 179 signatures calling on the Council to reject a petition presented to the Council on the 19 September 2024 by the Brent and Harrow Palestine Solidarity Campaign regarding divestment and requesting that the Council instead maintain its investment policy rather than divest.

In thanking the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in presenting the petition, Karen Flaum began by advising that the petitioners were calling on the Council to reject the petition presented by the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign (PSC) on 19th September 2024 on the grounds that the determination of foreign policy was the responsibility of the UK government. The petitioner questioned whether a local council possessed the necessary tools and systems to make accurate judgements on complex foreign conflicts, particularly in relation to the Middle East with the Councils focus therefore in determining local policies on good governance, in accordance with the powers conferred upon it by UK legislation.

In further support of the petition, Karen Flaum referenced decisions made by Hackney Council’s Pension Committee in July 2024 who had rejected the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement and Islington Council’s Pension Committee who had advised against divestment targeting Israel with both Committee’s having found such actions to be divisive, unlawful, and expensive and involving a risk of significant financial detriment and likely to involve a costly process of consultation with Fund Members, who were likely to have strong opinions on both sides.  The petition presented to the September 2024 Council meeting was also felt be contrary to the fiduciary duty to ensure that Pension Funds were properly managed and free from political views and influences. Reference was made to Section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988 and the Public Contract Regulations 2015 which stated that a decision not based on financial, or investment reasons could result in the council facing a judicial review challenge, posing financial and reputational risks to the Pension Fund and Council.

The petitioners also highlighted that failure to have due regard to the propensity of boycotts and divestments that were seen to promote hostility and persecution of Jewish Faith would be contrary to the Public Sector Equality Duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.  On this basis, Karen Flaum advised that the petitioners had felt the petition presented to the Council meeting in September 2024 to be misleading, divisive and anti-semitic including false allegations against Israel.  As an example it was pointed out that the International Court of Justice in January 2024 had not ruled there was plausible evidence that Israel was causing genocide.  The court had ruled that Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide on the same basis all citizens.  It had not decided that there was plausible case with the petition presented by the Brent & Harrow PSC, it was also pointed out,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

This report is presented to enable the Council to fulfil its statutory role to set a council tax base for 2025-26. The Local Government Finance Act (LGFA) 1992, as amended by the LGFA 2003 & LGFA 2012, requires the Authority to formally calculate the Council Tax Base for 2025-26 and pass this information to precepting authorities by 31 January 2025. The tax base must be set between 1 December 2024 and 31 January 2025.

Councillor Mili Patel, Deputy Leader & Cabinet Member for Finance & Resources, introduced the report from the Corporate Director of Finance and Resources setting out the Council Tax base for 2025-26 in order to enable the Council to fulfil its statutory role under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended).

Members noted that calculation of the Tax Base was based on a formula involving two elements:

a.    the number of taxable properties shown as “Band D equivalents”; and

b.    the expected collection rate for the year.

In considering the report the following issues were raised by the Committee:

• Assurance was sought that the calculation for the number of taxable properties had included an accurate forecast for the number of new housing developments across the borough.  In response, Michael Almond (Senior Finance Analyst) stated that the planning team had been consulted to gather data on houses being built and their expected completion dates. Currently, officers were working on the basis of Local Plan targets with a further update due to be provided as part of the review of the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) scheduled later in the year.

• Details were also sought regarding the impact of council tax debt on calculations and the overall financial position of the Council.  In response, Rav Jassar (Deputy Director of Finance) highlighted the importance of the collection rate and adjustments made over previous years to take into account economic factors (including the impact of the pandemic) that had affected actual collection in-year and the longer term effect on collection for the remaining debt outstanding.  Given the longer than anticipated recover in collections rates following the pandemic further adjustments had been made for 2025-26, which would need to be reflected in the budget proposals being presented to Cabinet and Full Council in February 2025.

Members recognised and supported the prudent nature of the assumptions being made and as a result, it was RESOLVED:

(1)  That the Band D equivalent number of properties be calculated, as detailed within the report, in accordance with the Government regulations.

(2)  That the collection rate for Council Tax for 2025-25 be set at 97.0%.

(3)  That subject to (1) and (2) above, a Council Tax Base for 2025-26 of 108,617 Band D equivalent properties (after collection rate allowance deduction) be approved.

(4)  To delegate authority to the Corporate Director, Finance and Resources to approve the revised tax base as detailed in section 7.3 of the report in the circumstances specified in section 7.3 of the report.

The purpose of this report is to present an updated Employer Pension Discretions Policy for approval and adoption.

Councillor Mili Patel (Vice Chair and Deputy Leader and Cabinet member for Finance & Resources) introduced a report from the Corporate Director Law & Governance which presented an updated Employer Pension Discretions Policy.

In presenting the report the Committee was advised that the Policy had been updated in order to facilitate better decision-making and improved employee relations with employers required (in accordance with the Local Government Pensions Scheme Regulations 2013) to keep their discretions policy under periodic review.  Members were advised that the refreshed Employer Pension Discretions Policy outlined 20 selected discretions (as opposed to the four required under regulations) designed to create a framework that would assist the Council in managing its relationship with employees and controlling its budget. Additional details on how the Council proposed to exercise its employer discretion had been provided in Appendix 1 to the report.

Following the presentation of the report, Musrat Zaman (Director of Human Resources and Organisational Development) emphasised that, under the Employer Pension Discretions Policy, there were only specific circumstances under which employers could exercise its discretion, which included flexible retirement and redundancy. This approach assisted in managing staff expectations and clarified the conditions under which they could appeal decisions.

Having thanked Councillor Mili Patel and Musrat Zaman for introducing the report, the Chair then moved on to invite questions and comments from the Committee, with the following comments and issues discussed:

• In response to clarification being sought regarding the consultation and engagement with Trade Unions on the updated Policy Musrat Zaman (Director of Human Resources and Organisational Development) advised that whilst not yet having been formally consulted a meeting was scheduled to take place in the near future to discuss the proposed update of the policy.  Whilst noting the Policy contained no significant change in approach, members were keen to emphasise the importance in ensuring the Trade Unions were consulted, moving forward, at as early a stage as possible.

• Members also sought clarification about the potential impact of the Employer Pension Discretions Policy on employees' expectations regarding redundancy and voluntary redundancy. In response, John Smith (Pensions Manager) clarified that the discretions had no impact on the existing redundancy scheme. The Policy provided an overview of the types of discretion and how the Council intended to exercise these discretions with each case continuing to be assessed on its own merits to manage expectations and protect budgets.

• Further details was sought in relation to the Employer Pension Discretions Policy concerning applications for the early payment of pension benefits on compassionate grounds due to reasons including chronic illness or disability with members keen to ensure that the requirement to submit supporting evidence avoided imposing additional strain on employees seeking to exercise this discretion. Members questioned whether reasonable adjustments in regard to the application process could be incorporated into the Policy. In response, John Smith (Pensions Manager) emphasised that applications on compassionate grounds were primarily intended for employees with caring responsibilities. However, if an employee was applying on their own behalf, they would do so under  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

No membership changes have been identified in advance of the agenda publication for consideration by the Committee.

No membership changes were identified for consideration at the meeting.

No items have been identified in advance of the meeting that will require the exclusion of the press or public.

There were no items that required the exclusion of the press or public from the meeting.

Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Deputy Director Democratic Services  or their representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 60.

No items of urgent business were raised at the meeting.