Pension fund investments

The request was partially successful.

Dear Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea,

I would like to request the following information:

1) The full details of what the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Pension Fund currently invests in, including the name and amounts of each asset class or investment being held.

Ideally this information would be broken down into the different categories, including: Index Linked Securities, Unit trust Property, Cash Instruments, Unit Trust Equities, Infrastructure, Fixed Interest Securities, Equities Segregated Unlisted, Equities Segregated UK, Equities Segregated Foreign as well as any other investments that the Pension Fund holds.

2) A full list of all the companies which the Pension Fund currently invests in (this should be covered in the above question). This list should include the names of each company and
the amount invested in each company.

3) The current yields of the different investments the pension fund holds.

4) Can you clearly specify the total value of all investments that the Pension Fund holds.

5) I would like to receive this information in an unlocked excel sheet without protext cells (.xls). If you have to password protect the excel sheet, can you also provide the password to the excel sheet.

I would like to receive the information in electronic format if possible. If one part of the request can be answered sooner than others, please send that information first followed by any
subsequent data. If you need further clarification, please contact me by email.

Many public authorities release their contracts, minutes and other information of interactions with private vendors in line with the Freedom of Information Act. The exemption for commercial interest under the Act (section 43) is a qualified exemption, which means information can only be withheld if it is in the public's interest. The public have an interest in knowing what the Pension Fund is investing in, the terms of contracts and the minutes of meeting with public authorities, whether or not public money changes hands immediately.

If you are relying on section 41 (the exemption for legal breach of confidence) then I would like to know the following:

* When these confidentially agreements were agreed
* All correspondence and email in which these confidentiality agreements were discussed
* The precise wording of the confidentiality agreements.

I ask these questions because guidance issued by both the Lord Chancellor (draft guidance on FOI implementation) and the Office of Government Commerce (Model terms and conditions for goods and services) specifically state that public authorities should not enter into these types of agreements; they go directly against the spirit of the laws of disclosure. I would also point to the Information Commissioner's guidance on accepting blanket commercial confidentiality agreements: 'Unless confidentiality clauses are necessary or reasonable, there is a real risk that, in the event of a complaint, the Commissioner would order disclosure in any case.'(i)

Finally, within the law of confidence these is also a public interest test. Therefore, the information should be disclosed in full. If any parts are redacted they must be for information that can be proven to be a legal breach of confidence in court, and only then where secrecy can be shown to be in the public interest. These are difficult positions to argue when public money is at stake or where a public authority is offering a private company a monopoly to charge its stakeholders.

I reserve the right to appeal your decision to withhold any information or to charge excessive fees, and understand that under the act, I am entitled to a response within 20 working days. I
would be grateful if you could confirm in writing that you have received this request.

Yours faithfully,

S. Gardom

(i) 'Freedom of Information Awareness Guidance 5: Commercial Interests' Office of the Information Commissioner, Page 10,
http://www.ico.org.uk/for_organisations/...

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

Dear Sir/Madam

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REF: 2013-1256

 

I am writing to confirm that we received your information request on 17
December 2013. For your information and future communications your request
has been allocated the reference number FOI2013-1256. Please quote this
reference in any future correspondence. 

 

We will consider your request and respond in accordance with the
requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Our duty is to
respond promptly or at least within 20 working days.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Robin Yu

Information Protection Assistant

Information Governance Team

Information Systems Division (ISD)

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

The Town Hall, Hornton Street, London W8 7NX

Tel: 020 7938 8226

 

Web: [1]http://www.rbkc.gov.uk

 

show quoted sections

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

Dear Sir/Madam

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REF: 2013-1256

 

I am responding to your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000,
which we received on 17 December 2013, for information held by the
Council. You requested:

 

1) The full details of what the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Pension
Fund currently invests in, including the name and amounts of each asset
class or investment being held.

 

Ideally this information would be broken down into the different
categories, including: Index Linked Securities, Unit trust Property, Cash
Instruments, Unit Trust Equities, Infrastructure, Fixed Interest
Securities, Equities Segregated Unlisted, Equities Segregated UK, Equities
Segregated Foreign as well as any other investments that the Pension Fund
holds.

 

2) A full list of all the companies which the Pension Fund currently
invests in (this should be covered in the above question). This list
should include the names of each company and the amount invested in each
company.

 

3) The current yields of the different investments the pension fund holds.

 

4) Can you clearly specify the total value of all investments that the
Pension Fund holds.

 

5) I would like to receive this information in an unlocked excel sheet
without protext cells (.xls). If you have to password protect the excel
sheet, can you also provide the password to the excel sheet.

 

I confirm that we hold the information requested.

 

Please note that FOI only requires a public authority to provide
information in a certain format (electronic or hard copy), we are not
required to provide information in a certain form (excel).

Under section 21, a public authority can refuse to provide information
which is already reasonably available elsewhere.

This information is available publicly in our Pension Fund Annual Report
and Accounts which is available here:

[1]http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/councilanddemocra...

You can find more recent information from our fund managers which will
answer your questions in the papers for the quarterly Investment Committee
meetings here:

[2]http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/committees/Meetin...

The documents here will provide all of the information requested in
electronic format.

Complaints

 

I trust this has satisfied your request.  Should you be unhappy with the
handling of your request, the Council has an internal complaints process
for handling FOIA complaints. Complaints are reviewed by the Chief
Solicitor and Monitoring Officer or her nominee. A form is available from
our website to lodge your complaint
[3]http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/councilanddemocra...
Please contact us if you do not have website access and we can provide you
with a copy of the form. Following this review, should you still be
unhappy with how your information request has been handled, you have a
further right to appeal to the Information Commissioner who is responsible
for ensuring compliance with FOIA.  

 

Yours faithfully

 

Robin Yu

Information Protection Assistant

Information Governance Team

Information Systems Division (ISD)

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

The Town Hall, Hornton Street, London W8 7NX

Tel: 020 7938 8226

 

Web: [4]http://www.rbkc.gov.uk

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/councilanddemocra...
2. http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/committees/Meetin...
3. http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/councilanddemocra...
4. http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/

Dear Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea,

Many thanks for your email, however the links you sent did not contain the full information I requested.

To make it clear, the kind of information I am requesting is similar to this from East Sussex County Council:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/1...

The above link has full details of all its investments in the different types of assets, including cash, property, equities, etc.

Ideally could you provide an excel spreadsheet with the information I requested, as East Sussex County Council has done previously?

If you are providing links to online documents, can you specify the direct links to those documents and the page numbers where that information can be found?

Yours faithfully,

S. Gardom

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

Dear Mr. Gardom,

 

I refer to our recent conversation and I apologise for the delay in
responding. Our Pension Fund Accountant is currently out of office but he
sent me a message reiterating what we originally responded with.

 

The link below is for the Investment Committee in February, I’ve been told
that you will be able to find all the information you require on the
Northern Trust reports which break everything down by manager and says
what they invest in. They also give performance over various periods.

 

[1]https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/committees/Meeti...

 

Yours sincerely

 

Robin Yu

Information Protection Assistant

Information Governance Team

Information Systems Division (ISD)

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

The Town Hall, Hornton Street, London W8 7NX

Tel: 020 7938 8226

 

Web: [2]http://www.rbkc.gov.uk

 

show quoted sections

Dear Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea's handling of my FOI request 'Pension fund investments'.

In your last email you provided a link to a website which did not provide the full information I requested. The reports on the page you linked to gave either the top 10 and bottom 10 investments, or the percentage of the funds investment in the various investment products, or other summaries of investments. I originally requested:

"The *full* details of what the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Pension Fund currently invests in, including the name and *amounts* of each asset class or investment being held.

"Ideally this information would be broken down into the different categories, including: Index Linked Securities, Unit trust Property, Cash Instruments, Unit Trust Equities, Infrastructure, Fixed Interest Securities, Equities Segregated Unlisted, Equities Segregated UK, Equities Segregated Foreign as well as any other investments that the Pension Fund
holds."

When conducting the internal review I would like you to consider the following arguments in favour of disclosure of the information I requested.

1) There are many local authority which already publish the full details I am requesting for their respective pension funds on their websites. Here are some examples:

Norfolk Pension Fund:

https://www.norfolkpensionfund.org/pensi...

Staffordshire:

http://moderngov.staffordshire.gov.uk/do...

Greater Manchester Pension Fund (a fund which has a current market value around £11,760,179,071)

http://www.gmpf.org.uk/investments/holdi...

There are also many local authorities which have published the information I am requesting through previous Freedom of Information requests, some of which are public on whatdotheyknow.com while others have been held privately. I will give examples of some which have been made publicly (and if you request I can also provide you with many more local authorities pension funds providing similar information privately).

East Sussex County Council:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/e...

West Sussex County Council:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w...

Bedford Borough Council

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/b...

There are many more examples – which I can provide if you request - where local authority pension funds have released the information I requested through public FOI requests on the internet.

As so many other local authorities have already released the information I am requesting for their respective funds (either on their websites or through FOI requests), I think there is a very strong case for Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to also disclose similar information for their pension fund. This is especially the case because some of these other funds are much larger than Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, such as the Greater Manchester Pension Fund.

2) To pre-empt any arguments against disclosure due to commercial sensitivity, I would argue that any suggested harm or prejudice to commercial interests from disclosure is insignificant and highly unlikely, especially as so many other Local Authorities have already released the information I have requested for their respective pension funds.

Does Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea have any evidence that the local authority Pension Funds which I have mentioned have suffered commercial damage or prejudice as a result of the full disclosure of their investments? If it can't, my understanding is that it cannot rely on the exemption.

Also, can Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea provide evidence that full disclosure of their own investments will actually damage commercial interests or “prejudice the commercial interests of the fund managers”? If it can't, my understanding is that it cannot rely on the exemption.

Also, is any such harm to commercial interests likely? Mr Justice Munby went some way to define what is meant by “likely” in the case R (on the application of Lord) v Secretary of State for the Home office [2003] EWHC 2073 (Admin). He said the word “likely”:

“connotates a degree of probability where there is a very significant and weighty chance of prejudice to the identified public interests. The degree of risk must be such that there 'may very well' be prejudice to those interests, even if the risk falls short of being more probable than not”

If Greater Manchester Pension Fund, which has holdings of around £11,760,179,071 (at current market value) - a fund which is several times the market value of Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea – can openly release on their website the information I am requesting due to the lack of commercial harm as well as the large public interest case in doing so, I think there is a very strong case for Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to release similar information for their pension fund as any commercial harm will likely.be minimal and trivial.

3) I wanted to expand on the public interest case in releasing the information I requested. The arguments for disclosure include the public interest test.

In Department of Health (DoH) v Information Commissioner (EA/2008/0018) the tribunal quoted advice produced by the Office for Government Commerce (now government Procurement Services) on transparency and public interest factors relating to procurement. It stated:

“There is a strong public interest in showing who public money is being spent with, how much public money is being spent on a particular service or good, and how the supplier arrived at the price that is being charged”

Information that helps the public evaluate and scrutinise government procurement decisions – such as the full investment information of Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Pension Fund – is therefore likely to warrant disclosure.

There is a clear and compelling public interest in disclosing information about the spending – and investing - of public money and this is recognised by the Information Commissioner. In Freedom of information Act Awareness Guidance No 5, Commercial Interests, (Version3, 6 March 2008) he states this “will be equally true whether a public authority is purchasing goods or services or responsible for awarding grants to private sector companies.”

The guidance note adds: “Transparency of decisions on how public funds are spent will also generate confidence in the integrity of the procedures involved. Where a public authority is purchasing goods or services there is a public interest in ensuring it gets value for money. This is particularly relevant at a time when there is public debate around the increasing role private companies have in delivering public services.”

As Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea hires private fund managers to oversee their Pension Fund, the above quote is very relevant.

Moreover, there is also a public interest in disclosing some commercially sensitive information about private companies that is held by public authorities, especially when it would protect the public. The ICO states:

“In the course of its role as a regulator, a public authority may hold information on the quality of products or on the conduct of private companies. There would be strong public interest arguments in allowing access to information which would help protect the public from unsafe products or dubious practices, even though this might involve revealing information that is likely to harm the commercial interests of a company.”

Without the public knowing exactly how the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea invests its money, how can the public judge whether “unsafe products” are being invested in or if “dubious practices” are taking place?

Finally, the Ministry of Justice's Freedom of Information exemptions guidance: Section 43 – Commercial interests (14 May 2008) provides general guidance as to when commercial information should be disclosed. Information should be released where disclosure would ensure:

“there is transparency in the accountability of public funds; there is proper scrutiny of government actions in carrying out licensing functions in accordance with published policy; public money is being used effectively and that departments are getting value for money, departments' commercial activities, including the procurement process, are conducted in an open and honest way.”

This clearly applies on many levels to Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Pension Fund and further warrants the full disclosure of its current investments.

Yours faithfully,

S. Gardom

P.S. A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

Dear Mr. Gardom

 

I acknowledge receipt of your request for internal review received on 24
April which will be forwarded to the Chief Solicitor and Monitoring
Officer to conduct.

 

There is no statutory deadline for internal reviews but we aim to respond
within 20 working days as recommended by the Information Commissioner’s
Office, therefore we aim to respond by 23 May.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Robin Yu

Information Protection Assistant

Information Governance Team

Information Systems Division (ISD)

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

The Town Hall, Hornton Street, London W8 7NX

Tel: 020 7938 8226

 

Web: [1]http://www.rbkc.gov.uk

 

show quoted sections

Dear Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea,

I was just wondering when I will receive the results of the internal review, as it is way past the promised date of when you would release it.

Yours faithfully,

S. Gardom

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

Dear Mr. Gardom,

I apologise for the delay. We will respond by the end of the week.

Yours sincerely

Robin Yu
Information Protection Assistant
Information Governance Team
Information Systems Division (ISD)
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
The Town Hall, Hornton Street, London W8 7NX
Tel: 020 7938 8226

Web: http://www.rbkc.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

Dear Mr Gardom

 

I refer to your request for an internal review, dated 24 April 2014, of
the Council’s response to your request of 17 December 2013 as set out in
Mr Yu’s emails of 1 February and 10 April 2014. I am the Council’s
Monitoring Officer and the person responsible for undertaking internal
reviews on behalf of the Council. I apologise for the time taken to
respond.

 

The information you have requested can be found in the report to the
Council’s Investment Committee for its meeting on 24 June 2014. I attach
the link to the agenda for the meeting

 

[1]https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/committees/Meeti...

 

The relevant report is that at A9
([2]https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/COMMITTEES/Docum...)
and the information requested is in notes 11 (page 15) through to note 14
(page 19)

 

This concludes my internal review and you now have the right to appeal to
the Information Commissioner at:

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF

Telephone: 0303 123 1113

Website: [3]http://www.ico.org.uk.

Yours sincerely

 

 

LeVerne Parker

Chief Solicitor and Head of Regeneration

Bi-Borough Legal Services

 

Tel 020 7361 2180

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/committees/Meeti...
2. https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/COMMITTEES/Docum...
3. http://www.ico.org.uk/