LawDebenture

Independent Governance Reviews and the Independent Person: getting real value, not just compliance

Two new requirements are heading for the LGPS: an Independent Person appointed to the Pensions Committee by the end of 2026, and a periodic Independent Governance Review (IGR), the first IGR due is to be completed by 31 March 2028. It would be easy to treat both as separate boxes to tick. LawDeb argue for a different approach: use both to improve how your Fund makes decisions. Here Helen Nguyen summarises the key points to consider for those managing LGPS Funds. 

Two requirements, one story 

It helps to think of the two new governance requirements operating together, they are different duties, but each makes the other work harder. 

The Independent Person is an ongoing role supporting the Pension Committee and LGPS senior officer. They advise and challenge, but they have no vote and don't make decisions. The role is continuous, so it can cover the work going on between meetings as well as the meetings themselves. The focus is better decisions, day to day. 

The IGR is a different animal. It is a periodic, arm's-length assessment, carried out by a suitably independent reviewer firm or person not otherwise engaged by the authority, and it can't be the same provider as your Independent Person. It is a point-in-time exercise, with the first review completed due by 31 March 2028, and it ends in findings and a published action plan. 

I like to put it this way: one is a person and the other is a process. The Independent Person must remain separate from the reviewer, but can help the Fund prepare for the IGR, understand its findings and keep the resulting actions moving. 

Getting the Independent Person role right 

Appointments are already well under way across the sector, and it is clear there is no single model emerging. My advice is to start from your own pressure points rather than a job title. What is your committee struggling with and what would actually help? That should shape the skills you look for. 

A few things I would build in: 

  1. Support, not duplication. The Officer leads delivery, and the Independent Person adds support and challenge on top. Personalities matter as much as skill set.  

  1. A different lens. Governance, investment, risk, regulation and committee practice all benefit from a fresh pair of eyes. 

  1. Agree ways of working. Settle the Fund’s priorities, boundaries and escalation routes at the start, not when something goes wrong. 

  1. Room to evolve. The scope will keep changing, so don't set it in stone. 

Consider where another view would help: a sounding board between meetings when something lands awkward, a second view on papers before they reach Committee, support for the Local Pension Board and its Chair, not just the Committee, challenge on administration, risk and resourcing, help shaping training so it matches the decisions coming up. 

Looking at what works elsewhere, the same themes keep coming up: collaboration with different stakeholders, conflicts management, constructive challenge and continuity. For me, the real value sits in governance breadth and candour. 

Getting ready for the review 

March 2028 may feel a long way off, but I would not leave it long before starting the IGR process. Questions around the specification, evidence requirements, assessor availability and independence all need careful consideration ahead of any procurement of a provider to complete the review. 

There are four areas worth addressing early: 

  1. Define the brief. Be clear about the questions the IGR should answer, its scope, the evidence required and what you want to get from the exercise. 

  1. Understand the market. Consider procurement and reviewer availability early, including the independence requirements that will affect who can undertake the review. 

  1. Get the evidence ready. Make sure key policies, minutes, decision records, risk documentation and training records are accessible and capable of demonstrating how governance works in practice. 

  1. Prepare your people. Brief officers and Committee members on the purpose of the IGR and what to expect so they are comfortable contributing openly and candidly. 

Preparation is part of the IGR process itself. Starting early gives more opportunity to shape a meaningful exercise, rather than allowing procurement or practical constraints to shape it for them. 

You are probably further ahead than you think 

One of the things I think will be comforting to Funds is that they likely have more in place than the Regulations suggest. The focus on governance processes is less new than it looks, it is simply more comprehensive. Pension Boards already provide governance support, so it is worth asking how that can feed into the review process. Knowledge sharing and benchmarking with other Funds help too. 

If you want to strengthen things now, here are my top tips from effectiveness reviews: 

  1. Test behaviours and decisions, not just structures. 

  1. Observe, interview and gather evidence on the quality of challenge. 

  1. Link induction and training to the decisions coming up. 

  1. Keep developing, and revisit the gaps. 

  1. Track a few meaningful indicators over time, such as action completion, attendance and learning, paper quality, evidence of challenge and a periodic effectiveness assessment. 

A strong, effective Committee is the best preparation for the review you could ask for. 

Turning findings into change 

If there is one mindset shift I would encourage, it is this: finding things to improve is not failure. Review, act, reassess is a cycle, and it never really stops. Please don't fear a candid outcome. 

This is where the Independent Person really comes into their own. They can interpret and contextualise the findings and test your response, challenge timescales and ownership, unblock dependencies and keep actions visible between meetings. They can also challenge assumptions and encourage more objective thinking. 

My golden rule is that there should be no finding without an owner, a date and a measure. Each one needs a named owner, a deadline, a success measure and a progress review. 

Measure value, not activity 

Lastly, be careful about how you judge whether either role is working. Activity is easy to count: meetings attended, reports produced, papers circulated, hours recorded, actions logged. But none of that tells you whether anything improved. 

Value is what changes. Is governance clearer and challenge stronger? Are decisions better informed? Are risks escalated earlier? Are agreed actions actually completed? Is there better integration across the chain? Let your measures and your scope evolve with the Fund. 

I would be glad to hear how you are getting on, so do get in touch with any questions, helen.nguyen@lawdeb.com. 

The latest from LawDeb

Loading carousel...