This Volume at a Glance:

• TPR unhappy about the Quality and Standards of Scheme Managers and ‘Trustees’ ;

• CC DeMofetta’s –  Public Day of Accounting and The Questions land on his desk.

• CC DeMofetta’s –  so called FoI 'response' and the Bugler's 'last chance' letter.

• CC DeMofetta’s –  No Response Bugler to lodge Complaint with Information Commissioner.

Reference in the following article is made to ‘Trustees’.

In the case of the Fire Service  this can be taken to refer to Scheme Managers and their Pension(advisory)Boards consisting of yet more Councillors and Representative bodies few, if any, who will know precious little about Pension Schemes, Pension Law, and even less about the application of these laws in practice.

The Bugler raised all these issues at the time it reported on Hutton. It seems as though the horrible pennies are about to drop on an unworkable Hutton idea for these Scheme attached Pension Boards.

This is hardly confidence inspiring and is in fact a fulfilment of one of Hutton’s rather dafter and completely unworkable national proposals, which amounts(to put it in Firefighter speak) in practice to the untrained and unqualified leading the moronic…

The Pensions Regulator’s Chief Executive Ms. Lesley Titcomb is clearly unhappy about the quality and standards of professional pension knowledge she has found in respect of ‘Trustees’ after carrying out brief snap survey of those set in law to manage and be responsible to those private investor/savers who have trusted them all their working lives with their pension savings for the future.

Regrettably in this survey it seems she only asked the 'converted' these so called 'managers' and not those, the 'unconverted' who have suffered at their hands.

It is critical if Ms. Titcomb is to acquire a balanced picture that the 'end users', so called customers, are asked their opinions in a proper and full survey.

The Pensions Regulator (TPR) wants an open debate about what a competent 21st Century Trustee/Manager/Board Member’s competencies ought to be and their managerial capability in controlling a key pension function in an the increasingly complex world of this pensions financial sector.

Speaking at Punter Southall's annual conference in London recently she revealed that the Regulator will be raising its focus on the capabilities of Trustees across both defined contribution (DC) and defined benefit (DB-Fire Service) to ensure they evolve to meet the needs of the dramatically changing pensions sector.

This will be the commendable theme in TPR's future communications with Scheme managers/trustees during which it will look at how it is going to give additional support to Trustees in areas such as training which will be a monumental task given the complete lack of a national curriculum and the  non-existence of Statutory pension qualifications as pension management stands nationally today.

Titcomb said there needs to be "more capable, competent 21st century Trustees" as both DC and DB pensions experience significant changes. Perhaps she should have been minded to say not  “more capable” but just basically capable to begin with and then to build on for the future?

She said: "Given that safeguarding pensions for DB or DC is a core priority for TPR, it is only right that we increase our focus on the competence and capability of Trustees and the structure of Trustee boards.

Trustees, from professional to member-nominated, many of whom may not come from a pensions background, are required to do an increasingly complicated job. There are important questions to ask about Trustees for the future, and we are starting to do that with a view to developing a vision of what a 21st century Trustee needs to look like and do."

This is most encouraging and clearly Ms.Titcomb is awakening to the reality of the appalling state that pension management is in within the UK and what a monumental task it will be, for example, to get a layabout councillor to give up the time to become ‘educated’ in boring pension matters during the brief period he can tear away his mind from 'creatively' filling in his expenses claim form…

Titcomb wants a "big open debate" with the pension sector about what a good 21st century Trustee looks like, the challenges they face, and what this means for the Regulator.

Initial findings of the watchdog's research on Trustee capability show that Trustees of larger schemes are more capable than those of smaller schemes.

Well is this true? It just means in fact that a larger Scheme will make more mistakes and that these ‘mistakes’ can more easily be buried in the volume of work.

TPR surveyed more than 800 Trustees over the summer months to better understand the challenges they are facing in the evolving pensions landscape, and will publish the results in the next few weeks.

Next year it will publish themed reports on what it has found out, heard, and what it will be doing to support Trustees and thus, as a direct consequence, one hopes, the Scheme members.

TPR's findings and Buglers comments:

• Trustees of larger schemes are more capable when compared to those of smaller schemes (Based on what criteria?).

• Half of schemes said all trustees met TPR's minimum standards for knowledge (well they would say that wouldn’t they); but only 14% of members said no Trustees had met them (That few? Perhaps 100% would be more accurate?)and have not heard of the Regulator's Trustee toolkit (well that is hardly a surprise).

• Trustees in small schemes spend, on average, nine days on their duties per year (they say), compared to 12 days for medium and 16 days for large schemes(These statistics are simple inflated nonsense by Trustees inflating their self-importance and expenses claims). 

• Around half(50%) of small schemes say Trustees spend less than five days on their duties per year(It is probably more like one third of that figure).

TPR has an unenviable huge amount of work just to establish a baseline bench mark in Pension Mangement Standards, from which to advance. The first realistic point it needs to make is to change legislation to eliminate these unworkable Pension Boards who are a complete waste of time and money, but the TPR are at least to be commended in making a start.

With acknowledgement to Stephanie Baxter of Professional Pensions original work.

The mystery surrounding the activities of 'Brendan the Barbarian' and his grubby companion Gardiner has simply not gone way. There is little doubt that De Molfetta has been grubbing in the undergrowth in his usual corrupt fashion to see how he is going to bury their festering professional corpses but that is easier said than done as he is finding out, Brendan's Blackmail(he knows too many of their secrets) is going to be a hard corpse to bury…

The Bugler mocked up a hymn sheet for him to sing from to this manipulated colleagues on the CFA at their Meeting in June but it seems he could not even get that right.

But nevertheless the buck stop with him; his Labour political boss at County Hall CC J.Mein;  and the Lancashire Labour Party and least there be doubts about that here are the statistics of the Party Political affiliations on the Combined Fire Authority and its 25 votes: Labour-14 votes; Conservatives-9 votes;LibDem-1 vote;Independent-1 vote. In casting the votes on Party lines Labour is in charge without question…

It is long past the point in repeating that this ridiculous figure of 25 Councillors to 'manage' 1000 Firefighters but nevertheless it ought to be mentioned again. It seems that all the cuts are coming from the red line/front line Service but it seems these Councillors are not prepared to take their fair share of cuts (expenses) from their own pockets?

So much, as usual, for the' fat cats and their cream'.The Honour of being elected to work for the well being of Lancashire  should suffice for their egos and their pockets.

That aside, it is time now, because DeMolfetta has had indeed had long enough rope to hang his political career out to dry, to ask the pertinent questions he fears the Public and the Bugler will ask him, and indeed we have. Go Here.

On Friday 9^th October 2015 the FoI Request above was sent directly to CC.F. DeMolfetta both by email and by hand.

He did not acknowledge either communication but he is not alone which raises the question how well do Lancashire CFA Elected Members respond to their duties?

On Friday 16^th October 2015 this FoI Request with an automated read response was also circulated to all 25 Elected members on the CFA and their Party Political Leaders at Lancashire County Hall.The league table below reflects those who show committment to their public and CFA duties.

As of Monday 19^th October 2015 the following is a list of respondents by Party and position:

Labour-14 Councillors.

Cllr J.Mein LCC Leader Labour Party-acknowledged. Not a Member of the CFA but approves the Chairman Cllr F.DeMolfetta.

Cllr D.Borrow LCC Deputy Leader Labour Party-Not acknowledged. Not a Member of the CFA.

Chair-Cllr F.DeMolfetta-Not acknowledged.

Vice Chair Cllr M.Parkinson-Not acknowledged.

Cllr F.Jackson-acknowledged.

Cllr R.Newman-Thompson-acknowledged.

Cllr. T. Aldridge-acknowledged.

Cllr. C. Crompton-acknowledged.

Cllr. T. Burns-acknowledged.

Conservative-9 Councillors.

Spokesperson-Cllr D.O’Toole-Not acknowledged.

Deputy Spokesperson- Cllr J.Shedwick-acknowledged.

Cllr K.Brown- acknowledged.

Cllr Tony Williams- acknowledged.

Cllr D.Stansfield- acknowledged.

LibDem-1 Councillor.

Cllr Bill Winlow LCC LibDem Party Leader-acknowledged.Not a Member of the CFA.

Spokesperson-Cllr J.Sumner-Not acknowledged.

Indp-1 Councillor.

Cllr L.Oades-Not acknowledged.

Neither Cllr F.DeMolfetta nor the LFRS clerk Warren who drafted this letter, because it cannot properly be described as a formal response under the Acts involved know the clear protocols required when responding to a formal FoI Request. It is interesting to note that there is no reference whatever to the second Act 'caught' by the questions framed within the original FoI Request, namely the Statutory Instrument 2014 No. 2095 Local Government England; The Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014. This SI is inextricably linked with this FoI Request. For their 'response'. Go Here.

Having outlined the required formal protocols of response to the Chairman of the CFA when responding  to a formal FoI Request it is essential in preparing  to take a Complaint forward to the Information Commissioner that Cllr F.DeMolfetta be given a final opportunity in writing to reflect on the issue which has raised the necessity for this Request in the first place, in the hope that he will reflect on the best course of action to take for the good name of the LFRS and its political consequences for himself. Go Here.

Cllr F.DeMolfetta Chairman of the Lancashire CFA has failed his legal duty which is to respond to the Bugler's request for a 'review' of his refusal to answer the Public Interest Questions posed to him. Accordingly a Complaint of failure of compliance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 will be lodged with the Information Commissioner.