Pensions Committee

Minutes PENSIONS COMMITTEE 11 June 2026 Meeting held at Committee Room 6 - Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge UB8 1UW Committee Members Present: Councillors John Riley (Chair), Jonathan Bianco (Vice -Chair), Stuart Mathers, Adam Huddle and Elizabeth Dumergue Also Present: Dagmar Dvorak – LCIV Wasil Mohar – LCIV Tony Noakes – Pension Board Member Roger Hackett – Chair of Pensions Board Member Andrew Singh – ISIO Catherine Edgecombe - Hampshire County Council Marian George – Independent Advisor LBH Officers Present: Pete Carpenter – Director, Pensions, Treasury & Statutory Accounts and Deputy s151 officer Anisha Teji – Senior Democratic Services Officer Tunde Adekoya – Finance Manager - Pensions & Governance Karl Periera – Trainee Accountant 173. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1) There were no apologies for absence. 174. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN MATTERS COMING BEFORE THIS MEETING (Agenda Item 2) There were no declarations of interest. 175. MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS - 14 MAY 2026 AND 24 MARCH 2026 (Agenda Item 3) RESOLVED: It was agreed that the minutes of the meetings on 14 May 2026 and 24 March 2026 be confirmed as accurate records. 176. TO CONFIRM THAT ITEMS MARKED PART I WILL BE CONSIDERED IN PUBLIC AND THOSE MARKED PART II WILL BE CONSIDERED IN PRIVATE (Agenda Item 4) It was confirmed that agenda items 5 – 9 would be considered in Part I and agenda items 10 – 12 would be considered in Part II. 177. ADMINISTRATION REPORT (Agenda Item 5) The Committee received an update on the administration of the Pension Fund, noting improved member portal registration (now at 54%) and that performance targets continued to be met. The historic backlog had reduced significantly to 230 ca ses and was now being managed as business as usual, with most remaining cases awaiting employer information. Strong member communication performance and positive audit results were highlighted. Members also noted progress on the McCloud remedy, with only a small number of outstanding cases expected to have minimal impact. It was further noted that preparations for the Pensions Dashboard were well advanced, with the service ready for rollout. The Committee noted that enquiries from members covered a wide r ange of issues, including pensions, death grants and general checks, rather than being repetitive. It was suggested that beneficiaries could be kept informed of any changes, although it was confirmed that the “Fit for the Future” programme related only to back-office processes and would not affect individual benefits. Discussion also covered cash flow management, with officers explaining that current arrangements were robust, although ad hoc payments could create some uncertainty. This was managed through existing safeguards and it was confirmed that cash flow monitoring was being strengthened and that both short - and longer -term projections could be provided to support future planning. RESOLVED: That the Pensions Committee noted the administration update. 178. INVESTMENT STRATEGY AND FUND MANAGER PERFORMANCE - PART 1 (Agenda Item 6) The Committee received an update on fund performance. Assets and liabilities fell during the quarter due to market volatility. The funding level reduced to 11 4% and the overall surplus decreased although the Fund remained in a strong position. Underperformance against the benchmark was noted mainly due to weaker equity returns. Asset allocation remained broadly within agreed ranges. Members sought clarification on investment terms, with “overweight” and “underweight” explained as positions above or below target levels. Concerns were raised about the Global Alpha Fund and a more detailed review was requested. Members also asked for regular updates on the proper ty transition to CBRE, which was at an early stage and expected to take several years. The impact of global events was discussed, with officers advising that short -term volatility was expected and that the Fund remained well positioned as a long -term, diversified investor. Members also raised concerns about exposure to large technology and AI sectors and requested ongoing monitoring. It was confirmed that the overall investment strategy remained unchanged under London CIV, with any major changes to be considered carefully over time. RESOLVED: That the Pensions Committee noted the funding and performance update. 179. RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT (Agenda Item 7) The Committee heard that the fund managers’ implementation of ESG policies continued to be monitored, including their voting activity and engagement with companies. Voting patterns were reviewed, with generally high levels of support for resolutions, although levels of activity varied between managers. It was noted that the Fund was a me mber of the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum (LAPFF), which undertakes engagement work on behalf of local authority pension funds, with examples of ESG-related discussions with fund managers provided. Members queried the extent of the Committee’s influe nce over ESG matters, with it confirmed that this was limited and primarily exercised through the Fund’s policy and the London CIV. It was further noted that new Government guidance was expected shortly, and Members requested that this be shared in advance with a briefing note ahead of the next meeting. RESOLVED: That that the Pensions Committee: 1. Noted the fund managers’ ESG activities and compliance efforts. 2. Noted LCIV & LAPFF activities. 180. RISK REGISTER REPORT (Agenda Item 8) The Co mmittee heard how pension fund risks were categorised and managed, with seven “closed” risks that were under control and seven “active” risks being monitored. It was highlighted that one open risk relating to key officers was proposed to be increased due to uncertainty arising from the forthcoming Fit for the Future regulations, which require the appointment of a Senior Responsible Officer with overall accountability for the Fund, and where current ambiguity in guidance and reporting structures could create a leadership gap if existing arrangements could not continue. It was noted that the risk relating to key officers arose not solely from resourcing pressures but from the need to retain specialist expertise, particularly given current staffing challenges, ongoing transitions towards pooling arrangements, and changes in legislation. Members emphasised the importance of maintaining experienced officers with both historical knowledge and awareness of current developments, and it was suggested that senior of ficers liaise with the Cabinet Member for Finance to ensure appropriate oversight and proactive management of the risk. It was confirmed that initial discussions had already taken place, with further engagement planned to seek clarity and direction, and th at a more detailed update would be provided to the Committee at a later stage. RESOLVED: That the Pensions Committee: 1. Considered and agreed the Risk Register in terms of the approach, the specific risks identified, and the measures being taken to mitigate those current risks. 2. Noted the revised format and agreed the retired risks and those which remained open. 181. GOVERNANCE (Agenda Item 9) Members considered the updated Pensions Committee work plan and were invited to suggest any addit ional items. Members were advised that the Fit for the Future regulations had recently been introduced, with further guidance expected shortly, including new mandatory training requirements. It was noted that a training plan would be developed and brought back to Committee in September, with tailored support for Members. The Committee also noted that cyber training would be arranged following the appointment of the new Committee to support strong cyber security practices. Members emphasised that training should be clear, focused and proportionate, reflecting different levels of experience and avoiding an overly heavy programme. It was agreed that training should apply to both full and substitute Members and that a mix of approaches, including joint sessions with other authorities, would be beneficial. It was further noted that additional, topic -specific training would be provided where needed, and that Members could request briefings on specific areas. Members also highlighted the value of practical sessio ns with fund managers and gaining a clearer understanding of how the pension system operates, particularly in light of ongoing changes. It was noted that the start time of the meeting would be changed to 6.00pm. RESOLVED: That the Committee: 1. Noted the dates for Pensions Committee meetings. 2. Made suggestions for future agenda items, working practices and / or reviews. 3. Noted Committee’s Continuous Professional Development update. 4. Noted GCoP update. 182. APPROVE RESTRICTED MINUTES FROM MEETING ON 24 MARCH 2026 (Agenda Item 10) This item was discussed as a Part II item without the press or public present as the information under discussion contained confidential or exempt information as defined by law in the Local Government (Access to Info rmation) Act 1985. This was because it discussed ‘information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)’ (paragraph 3 of the schedule to the Act). RESOLVED: That the Committe e agreed the Part II minutes from the meeting on 24 March 2026 as an accurate record. 183. GOVERNANCE PART II (Agenda Item 11) This item was discussed as a Part II item without the press or public present as the information under discus sion contained confidential or exempt information as defined by law in the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. This was because it discussed ‘information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)’ (paragraph 3 of the schedule to the Act). RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the recommendation as detailed in the confidential report. 184. INVESTMENT PART II - STRATEGY REVIEW AND FIT FOR THE FUTURE UPDATE (Agenda Item 12) This item was discussed as a Part II item without the press or public present as the information under discussion contained confidential or exempt information as defined by law in the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. This was because it discussed ‘information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)’ (paragraph 3 of the schedule to the Act). RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the r ecommendation as detailed in the confidential report. The meeting, which commenced at 5.00 pm, closed at 6.42 pm. These are the minutes of the above meeting. For more information on any of the resolutions please contact Anisha Teji on ateji@hillingdon.gov.uk. Circulation of these minutes is to Councillors, Officers, the Press and Members of the Public.

Classification: Public Pensions Committee 29 September 2026 Pensions Administration & Performance Item 5 Committee Pensions Committee Contact Officers Pete Carpenter - Finance Tunde Adekoya – Finance Papers with this report None REASON FOR ITEM The provision of administration services for the Hillingdon Pension Fund is delivered in partnership with Hampshire County Council (HCC) through Hampshire Pension Service (HPS) under a section 101 agreement. The agreement includes Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) which are generally consistent with national standards. The purpose of this report is to update the Pension s Committee on pensions administration activities and the performance of the administration provider against the agreed indicators. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That the Pensions Committee note the administration update INFORMATION Executive Summary The administration of the London Borough of Hillingdon Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) continues to perform strongly against agreed service standards. Hampshire Pension Services (HPS) completed 313 administration cases during the reporting period, with 100% of cases processed within the relevant service level agreements, demonstrating continued operational effectiveness. Membership The Fund's membership profile remained broadly stable between June and July 2026. Active and deferred memberships saw marginal reductions, whilst pensioner and preserved refund memberships increased slightly. Overall membership increased by 4 members, from 30,369 in June 2026 to 30,373 in July 2026. Membership Category June 2026 July 2026 Movement Active 9,108 9,060 -48 Deferred 12,339 12,337 -2 Pensioner 9,080 9,088 +8 Preserved Refund 1,842 1,880 +38 Total 30,369 30,373 +4 Classification: Public Pensions Committee 29 September 2026 Casework Performance A total of 313 cases were completed during the period. Overall performance was strong, with virtually all case types completed within service standards. Deferred Benefits represented the largest workload (108 cases), followed by Estimates (74 cases) and Deferred Retirement cases (32 cases). Transfers Out achieved 89% completion within target as it is largely dependent on response from destination funds, while all other reported categories achieved 100%. Work In Progress There are currently 613 outstanding administration cases. The largest work-in- progress categories relate to Interfund and Transfer-In cases (181), Estimates (130) and Rejoiners/Aggregations (103). Whilst these remain within normal operational management, they continue to represent the primary areas of workload pressure. Work Completed as of 31 July 2026 Type of Case 0 – 5 days 6 – 10 days 11 -15 days 16 – 20 days 21 – 30 days 31+ days Total % completed on time Average days Active Retirement 10 4 0 0 0 0 14 100% 5 Deferred Retirement 9 14 9 0 0 0 32 100% 8 Estimates 15 28 31 0 0 0 74 100% 9 Refunds 1 10 0 0 0 0 11 100% 8 Deferred Benefits 30 3 8 8 59 0 108 100% 17 Interfunds and Transfers In 3 1 6 0 0 0 10 100% 10 Interfunds and Transfers Out 5 5 14 3 0 0 27 89% 10 Divorce Quotes 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 100% 9 Divorce Actuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% Rejoiners/Aggregation 0 3 12 0 0 0 15 100% 12 Deaths 16 3 1 0 0 0 20 100% 3 Grand Total 90 71 85 8 59 0 313 100% Time to Complete Work in Progress as of 31 July 2026 Type of Case 0-5 days 6-10 days 11-15 days16-20 days21-30 days31+ Days Total Active Retirement 2 0 1 1 0 0 4 Deferred Retirement 3 8 6 5 5 7 34 Estimates 11 21 16 13 12 57 130 Refunds 4 3 2 0 0 1 10 Deferred Benefits 4 3 2 8 7 24 48 Interfunds and Transfers In 2 3 4 1 12 159 181 Interfunds and Transfers Out 5 4 6 3 1 22 41 Divorce Quotes 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 Divorce Actuals 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Rejoiners/Aggregation 10 18 9 10 9 47 103 Deaths 5 1 4 1 2 45 58 Grand Total 46 62 51 42 48 364 613 Time Outstanding Classification: Public Pensions Committee 29 September 2026 Online Services As of 31 July 2026, 17,525 members (57.5%) were registered for the online member portal, whilst 12,960 members (42.5%) remained unregistered. Portal adoption continues to exceed half of the Fund's membership, supporting the Fund's objective of increasing member self-service and digital engagement. Registration levels remain strongest amongst active members, with continued opportunities to increase engagement across the deferred and pensioner populations. Membership Category Total Membership Registered on Portal Registration Rate Active 9,060 6,058 66.9% Deferred 12,337 6,421 52.1% Pensioner 9,088 5,046 55.5% Total 30,485 17,525 57.5% Call and Email Volumes Member contact volumes remain high. During the reporting period, 124 telephone calls were received, of which 121 were answered, achieving a call answer rate of 97.5%. Average call waiting time was 61 seconds, while 95.0% of calls were answered within five minutes. In addition, 6,049 emails were received and processed. Calls Received 124 Calls Answered 121 Calls Answered Percentage 97.52% Calls Abandoned 3 Abandoned Percentage 3.31% Average Wait Time 61.17 Calls Answered Within 5 Minutes 115 Calls answered waiting for longer than 5 mins 6 Percentage Of Calls Answered Within 5 Minutes 95.04% Compliments and Complaints Customer feedback remains positive. Four compliments were received during the reporting period highlighting ease of use, responsiveness and professionalism. One formal complaint relating to pension transfer expectations was investigated and resolved without further escalation following clarification of the member's circumstances. Classification: Public Pensions Committee 29 September 2026 Conclusion Overall, pensions administration performance remains robust, with strong service delivery, full compliance with agreed performance standards, increasing digital engagement and limited complaint activity. Continued management focus will be directed towards reducing outstanding transfer-related case volumes whilst maintaining current performance standards. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Financial implications are included in the body of the report. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Legal implications have been included in the body of the report.

Classification: Public Pensions Committee 29 September 2026 INVESTMENT STRATEGY and FUND MANAGER PERFORMANCE (Part I) ITEM 6 Committee Pensions Committee Officer Reporting Tunde Adekoya, Finance Pete Carpenter, Finance Papers with this report LCIV Quarterly Performance Report 30 June 2026 Hymans Interim Funding Update 30 June 2026 Pension & Investment Research Consultants (PIRC) Report HEADLINES Through collaboration between LCIV and partner funds, a new quarterly performance report has been developed to present key performance, funding and investment outcomes in a clear and accessible format. Officers have prepared an executive summary for commit tee members, drawing out the most significant issues, developments and matters requiring scrutiny or decision. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Pensions Committee: • Note the Fund performance of 8.9% for Q2 2026 and 16.6% over one year. • Note that performance remains largely market-driven and consistent with long-term objectives. • Note progress against Responsible Investment and stewardship priorities. Executive Summary Fund assets increased to £1.673bn on 30 June 2026 from £1.555bn during the quarter, reflecting strong market gains and positive investment returns. The Fund delivered 8.9% in Q2 2026 and 16.6% over the previous 12 months. While behind the benchmark the five-year annualised return of 6.7% met the Fund’s long-term actuarial discount rate. Classification: Public Pensions Committee 29 September 2026 Key Messages for Committee • Listed equities were the primary driver of performance, benefiting from strong global equity markets and continuing AI-related investment themes. • The Fund remains materially overweight listed equities (60.9% versus 49.0% target), providing liquidity to finance future private market commitments. • An implementation plan has been agreed to increase allocations to Infrastructure, Private Credit and Private Equity. • Responsible investment activity continued to develop, including climate reporting and active stewardship initiatives. Strategic Asset Allocation Review 8.9 16.6 11.8 6.7 8.9 18.2 12.5 8 % Investment Performance as at 30 Jun 2026 Fund Benchmark Classification: Public Pensions Committee 29 September 2026 The portfolio continues to transition towards the revised Strategic Asset Allocation. Equity and Credit overweights are expected to fund future commitments of £130m to Private Equity, £50m to Infrastructure and £70m Private Debt respectively over the implementation period. Market Environment Global equity markets delivered exceptionally strong returns despite geopolitical volatility. Investor confidence improved following easing Middle East tensions, while continued investment in artificial intelligence infrastructure supported technology and growth-oriented sectors. Bond markets remained volatile as inflation stayed above target levels and central banks maintained restrictive monetary policy settings. Forward Look and Conclusions Priority actions for the next reporting period include implementation of the approved strategy changes, gradual reduction in property exposure where liquidity permits, and progression of private market commitments. The Fund remains well-diversified and financially robust. Governance and Responsible Investment London CIV reported continued progress against climate objectives, including a 35% reduction in Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions intensity versus the 2020 baseline. Engagement activity included support for shareholder resolutions and active stewardship on climate, human rights and AI governance matters. Management Commentary Overall performance during Q2 2026 was strong and predominantly market-driven rather than the result of strategic reallocations. The Fund met its long-term actuarial benchmark over five years while maintaining sufficient liquidity to progress the agreed implementation plan. As private market commitments are drawn, asset allocation is expected to move closer to strategic targets and provide enhanced diversification benefits over the medium term. Asset Class Actual % Target % Variance % Listed Equity 60.9 49 11.9 Private Equity 0.1 8 -7.9 Property 8.6 8 0.6 Infrastructure 4.5 8 -3.5 Other Alternatives 4.1 5 -0.9 Private Credit 4.2 8 -3.8 Credit 8.8 7 1.8 UK Government Bonds 6 7 -1 Cash 2.8 0 2.8 Classification: Public Pensions Committee 29 September 2026 Interim Funding Valuation Update The interim funding position of the Fund improved significantly over the quarter ended 30 June 2026, with the Fund's estimated funding level increasing from 114% to 124% and the funding surplus rising from £0.19bn to £0.33bn, an improvement of approximately £140m. At the last valuation the equivalent figures were a funding level of 118% and a surplus of £120m. Key Funding Metrics Measure 31 Mar 2026 30 Jun 2026 Movement Assets £1.58bn £1.71bn +£0.13bn Liabilities £1.39bn £1.38bn -£0.01bn Surplus £0.19bn £0.33bn +£0.14bn Funding Level % 114 124 +10 Required Return % p.a. 5.1. 4.5 -0.6 Likelihood of Success % 84 88 +4 Reasons for the Improvement The improvement was driven primarily by strong investment performance. Fund assets increased by approximately £130m over the quarter, supported by continued positive market returns. The reported total investment return since the 2025 valuation increased from 11.57% at March 2026 to 21.51% at June 2026, indicating a particularly strong three-month period for investment markets. At the same time, liabilities reduced marginally from £1.39bn to £1.38bn, despite the discount rate falling from 6.0% to 5.9%, which would normally increase liabilities. This suggests that favourable market conditions and the actuarial roll-forward assumptions more than offset the impact of lower discount rates. The strengthening funding position has reduced the return required for the Fund to achieve full funding from 5.1% p.a. to 4.5% p.a., while the probability of achieving the required return increased from 84% to 88%, reflecting an improvement in overall funding resilience. Overall Assessment (Revised) The Fund remains in a strong funding position primarily due to strong investment performance and a broadly stable liability position. This funding update is intended to provide an indicative snapshot of the Fund's position and should therefore be interpreted with appropriate caution. Classification: Public Pensions Committee 29 September 2026 Local Authority Pension Fund Statistics Report (by PIRC) The Pension Investment Research (PIRC) Local Authority Fund Statistics 2026 benchmarks of 61 Local Authority Pension Funds with combined assets of approximately £299bn, comparing investment performance across major asset classes over periods ranging from 1 to 30 years as of 31 March 2026. Information below provides overview of Hillingdon performances in comparison to similar LGPS Funds in the UK. Hillingdon Pension Fund Performance Period Hillingdon Universe Average Out/(Under) Performance Ranking 1 Year 11.7 9.6 2.1 22 3 Years p.a. 9.1 7.4 1.7 13 5 Years p.a. 5.9 5.8 0.1 37 10 Years p.a. 6.5 7.6 (1.1) 92 20 Years p.a. 5.4 6.6 (1.2) 97 Hillingdon has delivered strong short and medium-term results, outperforming the Local Authority universe over 1, 3 and 5 years. The strongest outcome was the 3- year annualised return of 9.1%, ranking 13th in the universe. However, longer-term performance remains weaker, with rankings falling to the lower end of the peer group over 10 and 20 years. Performance Against Benchmark Despite outperforming many LGPS peers, the Fund has underperformed its own benchmark across all reported periods, by approximately 0.9% to 1.1% per annum. Shorter term performance has started to improve following strategy changes over recent years. Period Fund Return Benchmark Return Relative Return 1 Year 11.7% 12.7% -1.0% 3 Years 9.1% 10.0% -0.9% 5 Years 5.9% 7.0% -1.1% Classification: Public Pensions Committee 29 September 2026 Asset Class Analysis Equities remain the Fund's strongest asset class and the principal driver of overall performance. Returns exceeded the Local Authority universe across all measured periods, with a particularly strong 3-year ranking of 5th. The equity strategy has clearly added value relative to peers and has been instrumental in maintaining above-average total fund performance. Return Comparison (%) Period Hillingdon Universe Average Difference Rank 1 Year 17.3 14.9 2.4 17 3 Years p.a. 14.3 11.6 2.7 5 5 Years p.a. 9.6 8.4 1.2 18 10 Years p.a. 9.1 10.4 (1.3) 97 20 Years p.a. 6.8 8.1 (1.3) 98 Bonds represent the weakest major asset class. While performance was marginally above average over one year, returns lagged the universe over both 3 and 5 years and generated lower-half peer rankings. Bond performance is likely a significant contributor to benchmark underperformance and weaker long-term outcomes. Return Comparison (%) Period Hillingdon Universe Average Difference Rank 1 Year 5.2 4.7 0.5 33 3 Years p.a. 3.0 3.5 (0.5) 63 5 Years p.a. (1.3) (0.3) (1.0) 69 10 Years p.a. 2.3 2.3 0.0 48 20 Years p.a. 3.8 4.1 (0.3) 57 Overall Assessment Key strengths • Outperformance of the Local Authority universe over 1, 3 and 5 years. • Strong equity returns, including a top-quartile ranking over all reported periods and 5th place over three years. • Relatively modest benchmark underperformance compared with many LGPS peers. Classification: Public Pensions Committee 29 September 2026 Conclusion Hillingdon currently has better performance than the average LGPS fund, particularly over the last three years, where it ranks 13th overall and benefits from exceptionally strong equity performance (5th ranking over 3 years). FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The financial implications are contained within the body of the report. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS There are no legal implications in the report.

Working together to deliver sustainable prosperity for the communies that count on us all www.londonciv.org.uk London Borough of Hillingdon Pension Fund Quarterly Performance Report Period ending June 2026 Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. Returns are shown net of investment management fees. Bookmarks Executive Summary|3|1 |0|2 |0|3 Market Update|6|1 |0|2 |0|3 Quarterly Update|10|1 |0|2 |0|3 Portfolio Statement and Asset Class Allocation|15|1 |0|2 |0|3 ISS Implementation Plan Update|18|1 |0|2 |0|3 Investment Performance|21|1 |0|2 |0|3 Portfolio Update|24|1 |0|2 |0|3 Responsible Investment|33|1 |0|2 |0|3 Appendices|37|1 |0|2 |0|3 Disclaimer|42|1 |0|2 |0|3 Contents Execuve Summary 3 Market Update 6 Por%olio Statement and Asset Class Allocaon 15 ISS Implementaon Plan Update 18 Investment Performance 21 Por%olio Update 24 Responsible Investment 33 Appendices 37 Disclaimer 42 Execu&ve Summary Execu&ve Summary (i) Investment Performance 5 year Fund Performance 6.7% p.a. The por%olio returned 6.7% p.a. over the 5 years to the end of June 2026 compared to the Strategic Asset Allocaon expected return of 6.7% p.a. Strategic Posi&oning £1.67bn Assets increased by £118m from £1.55bn over the quarter . 6.7 11.8 16.6 8.9 8.9 8.0 12.5 18.2 8.9 8.9 0 5 10 15 20 % 5 years 3 years 1 year FYTD 3 months Funds NT Composite Benchmark Performance 60.9 0.1 8.6 4.5 4.1 4.2 8.8 6.0 2.8 49.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 5.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 0.0 0 20 40 60 80 % Listed E quity Private Equi ty Prop erty Infras tructure O the r Al ternative s Private Credit Cred it UK G ovt Bonds Cash Funds SAA Asset Alloca&on The Scheme returned 6.7% p.a. over five years to the end of June 2026, in line with its long-term return objecve. Returns were stronger over shorter periods. While the Scheme lagged the benchmark over the one, three and five-year periods, it met its long-term objecve over five years and exceeded it over three years. The Scheme was valued at £1.7bn on 30 June 2026, up from £1.6bn at the start of the quarter . The Scheme remained significantly overweight Listed Equity, at 60.9% compared with a Strategic Asset Allocaon (SAA) target of 49.0% and was also overweight Credit and Cash. This posion offsets underweights to Private Equity, Infrastructure and Private Credit, which are being built over me. The agreed implementaon plan will use the Equity and Credit overweights to fund increased private market allocaons. Page 4 Over the quarter, global markets delivered strong returns despite periods of vola&lity. Investor sen&ment improved as geopoli&cal tensions eased towards the end of the quarter, while con&nued investment in AI infrastructure supported equity markets. Technology and growth-oriented sectors performed par&cularly well, while fixed income delivered mixed returns as bond yields remained elevated. Within asset classes, Listed Equity was the main contributor to returns during the quarter ending June 2026, benefing from strong global equity markets. Infrastructure, Private Credit and Other Alternaves also contributed posively. Maintaining a diversified allocaon across a range of asset classes connued to support the Scheme's long-term objecves. The London Borough of Hillingdon Pension Scheme had a value of £1.7bn on 30 June 2026. Listed Equity remained by far the largest allocaon at 60.9%, while Credit and UK Government Bonds represented 8.8% and 6.0% of assets, respecvely. The Scheme's Strategic Asset Allocaon (SAA) implementaon plan was agreed during the quarter, with implementaon acvity expected to commence shortly. The plan consolidates Public Equity holdings and rebuilds private market allocaons over me. The Scheme remained significantly overweight Listed Equity relave to its SAA target, offseGng underweights to Private Equity, Infrastructure and Private Credit. Approximately £55m of undrawn commitments, together with new commitments idenfied in the implementaon plan, are expected to increase private market exposure over me. Over the 12 months to 30 June 2026, the Scheme returned 16.6%, compared with 18.2% for the benchmark. The Scheme's long-term return objecve is 6.7% p.a. The Scheme returned 11.8% p.a. over three years and 6.7% p.a. over five years, exceeding its objecve over three years and meeng it over five years. Looking ahead, the key iniaves that will be worked upon are: - The Scheme's Public Equity holdings and begin funding new private market commitments in line with the agreed implementaon plan. - Reduce the Property allocaon over me and return capital from the London CIV IREP as liquidity becomes available. - Agree on Responsible Investment priories and local investment opportunies. Execu&ve Summary (ii) Page 5 Markets Update Markets Update (con&nued) Macro Markets Update Macro • In the second quarter of 2026, investors navigated between two compeng themes; the U.S.-Iranian conflict and the AI boom. • The quarter’s defining geopolical theme was the Middle East conflict and the uneven path to peace. A fragile April ceasefire was repeatedly tested before a peace agreement was reached on 14 June. The quarter closed with the peace holding, albeit tenuously, and shipping traffic through Hormuz gradually recovered. • Inflaon reaccelerated in the quarter to June 2026 as the Iran conflict pushed energy prices higher - Brent crude reached an intraday high of $126 at the end of April before sePling at around $73 at the end of June. As a consequence CPI rose from 3.8% in April to 4.2% in May in the US, and in the U.K CPI held at 2.8%. As a result, Central bank policy pivoted away from easing. The European Central Bank raised its deposit rate for the first me since 2023, liQing it 0.25% to 2.25% in June, with officials signalling a further move in September remained possible. The Federal Reserve held rates steady at its June meeng, and the Bank of England kept rates at 3.75% in both April and June. Page 7 Markets Update (con&nued) Macro • The AI boom emerged as a powerful countervailing force to the energy shock, reshaping the global growth and market narrave as the quarter progressed. With a percepon of peace in the Middle East, “risk” assets performed. As can be seen from the chart opposite, all major equity markets posted double digits for the 3 months ending June 2026. • Government bond markets were volale. U.K. 30- year gilt yields increased to 5.76% in early May - a 28-year high - as traders priced in mulple Bank of England rate hikes. The US 30-year Treasury yield reached its highest level since 2007 in mid-May at 5.19%, as global inflaon expectaons led to a synchronised sell off in bond markets. • Public credit markets experienced a more nuanced quarter . US investment-grade spreads ghtened to their narrowest levels in mid-May, spurring a record pace of corporate bond issuance Notably, SpaceX's inaugural $25 billion investment-grade bond issue aPracted almost $90 billion of demand. • Currency markets were shaped by the diverging rate outlooks between the U.S. and Europe. The Euro weakened progressively through the quarter, falling below 1.14 against the U.S. dollar in late June — it's lowest since June 2025 — as markets priced in a more aggressive Fed ghtening path relave to the ECB. Page 8 Markets Update (con&nued) Macro • Gold's mul-year bull run came under severe pressure during the quarter . Having surged to record highs in early 2026, bullion fell below $4,000 per ounce for the first me since November as a resurgent U.S. dollar and rising rate expectaons brought the three-year rally to a halt. • Despite strong equity returns in aggregate over the last 3 months, the table opposite shows there was considerable variaon across regions. Furthermore, it highlights the dominance of US listed stocks in the index. • The asset class valuaon chart at the boPom right compares asset classes relave to the end of 2025. • As markets set course for the second half of 2026, the outlook appears calmer but remains far from sePled. The Iran peace deal has eased the storm that dominated Q1 and much of Q2, while the AI investment cycle connues to provide a strong tailwind for growth. Yet inflaon remains above target in both the U.S. and U.K., monetary policy is sll ghtening, fiscal pressures are mounng, and the Hormuz ceasefire has yet to prove seaworthy. With risk premia sll rebuilding and geopolical currents unsePled, investors may find that careful navigaon and stock selecon maPer more than simply sailing with the de. Page 9 Markets Update (con&nued) Asset Class Update Markets Update Asset Class Update U Equity: The quarter to the end of June 2026 was very posive for equie s despite the volale nature of the macro and geopolical environment. Th e 15.7% return for the MSCI World saw many indices pushing on to record highs and rep resented equies best quarter since 2020. As with the previous quarter the standout performer was Emer ging Markets (EM). The MSCI EM index was up 22.1%. This significant outper formance versus the rest of the world was driven largely by incredible momentum d riven rallies in AI & technology heavy countries such as South Korea and Taiwan. This, however, masks a decline in Chinese equies. The quarter saw a strong rebound for “growth” and “momentum” factors. Within technology, chip and equipment suppliers (the AI “sellers”) outperformed the large hyperscalers (i.e. MicrosoQ, Amazon, Google) who are sll s pending heavily on AI infrastructure. Investors appear to be increasingly rewarding near-term profitability over speculave capital spending. Overall, corporate earnings in the quarter were ahead of expectaons; around 85% of S&P 500 companies beat profit forecasts and 81% beat revenue forecasts. Year- on-year earnings growth accelerated to roughly 30%. Growth was broad-based across 11 of the 12 major sectors, not just technology. UK equies parcipated in the rally but lagged most major mar kets, reflecng the FTSE's lower weighng to technology. Going into the second half of the year things to watch include: - the need to monitor valuaons that have risen alongside pric es: the S&P 500 ended the 6 months to end June 2026 at close to 20x forward earnings, above its long-run average, leaving less room for disappointment if earnings growth slows. - Concentraon risk persists despite the broadening in leadership, the largest technology stocks sll account for around a third of the MSCI All World index. - China remains a source of divergence within Emerging Market s, reflecng weak domesc demand, property-sector strain and regulatory pressure on its technology sector . - The Middle East ceasefire is recent and has already shown sign s of fragility. - A more hawkish Federal Reserve under its new chair is a change from market expectaons at the start of the year and warrants monitoring, given its influence on discount rates and equity valuaons globally. UK Government Bonds:  Gilts delivered a modestly posive return in the quarter to end of June 2026. Looking from afar, returns over the quarter seemed benign despite the polical changes that occurred in the UK. The reality was that May saw Gilts yieldsrise significantly before calming across June. Longer dated gilts were more volale in the quarter . The mark et dealt with the impending arrival of Burnham as prime minister with relavecalm.  Credit: In a repeat to the previous quarter the credit markets remain ed an oasis of calm when compared to the high levels of dispersion seen across Equity strategies. Having widened marginally in March when the Iran conflict started, c redit markets moved ghter in the quarter to the end of June 2026. This resulted insmall mark to market gains on top of interest income across the credit spectrum.  While credit markets appear “fully” priced, the underlying credit quality of corporates globally looks healthy and so jusfies the pricing to a certain extent. Page 10 Markets Update (con&nued) Asset Class Update Private Equity: Overview: The first six months of 2026 have reinforced that the Private E quity recovery is sll showing signs of progress but remains narrow and uneven rather than broad-based. Market acvity has improved from the weaker 2023–2024 period, yet the recovery is being led by selected higher-quality assets and larger tr ansacons, while overall deal volumes remain more subdued. The backdrop over this period therefore suggests a market moving from dislocaon into selecve normalisaon. The opportunity set is improving, but future returns are likely to be driven less by broad mulple expansion and more b y manager skill in sourcing, underwring, operaonal delivery, exit ming an d capital structure discipline. Deployment & Financing Trends: A key development through the first half of the calendar year h as been the connued shiQ from volume-led to convicon-led deployment. Private Equity firms appear more willing to transact where there is clear downsid e protecon, resilient revenue quality, defensible market posioning or idenfiab le operaonal upside, but remain cauous on assets exposed to uncertain exit mulp les, AI disrupon, energy-price volality or wider macro risk. The lower and middle market has remained relavely acve, pa rcularly where businesses are viewed as operaonally understandable, less exposed to technology displacement and capable of supporng value creaon without aggressive leverage. This has helped sustain deal flow in more tradional, defensive or service-oriented sectors, even as larger technology and soQware assets face more selecve scruny. The first six months of 2026 have also highlighted a clear divergence between deal value and deal count. Larger transacons and selected mega-deals have supported headline acvity levels, but this should not be read as a fullreopening of the market. Beneath the headline numbers, the market connues to reflect fewer transacons, more disciplined underwring and a preference for clearer sector and exit theses. Valuaon and financing condions are becoming more stable, b ut not necessarily easier. Debt markets are more open but higher financing costs and more conservave leverage assumpons connue to shape bid disci pline (to avoid overpaying for companies). This supports a more cauous und erwring environment, parcularly where sellers remain anchored to older prior-cycle valuaon expectaons. Exit & Liquidity Trends: Exit acvity remains the principal constraint on the cycle.While exit condions have improved direconally versus the downturn years, the recovery is sll incomplete: strategic sales are carrying much of the liquidity burden, p rivate equity-to-private equity acvity is more selecve, and IPOs remain available o nly for a narrower set of larger higher-quality or bePer-posioned companies. The praccal implicaon is that investor liquidity remains under pressure. 2026-to- date has not yet delivered the breadth of distribuons required to reset fundraising condions fully, so distribuons, realised exits and evide nce of cash returned to investors connue to maPer more than paper value creaon or unrealised marks. Fundraising Trends: Fundraising developments in the first half of the calendar year also point to a more concentrated market. Capital appears to be favouring estab lished pla%orms with stronger realised track records, credible exit pathways an d the ability to demonstrate por%olio liquidity, while smaller, emerging o r less differenated managers face a more difficult raising environment. Outlook & LP Implica ons: The outlook for Private Equity is improving but remains selecve rather than broad- based. For instuonal investors, this points to maintaini ng deployment discipline while priorising managers that can evidence realised exit s, consistent generaon of distribuons and credible liquidity pathways, rather th an relying on unrealised mark-ups or a cyclical recovery in valuaons. In pracce, th e environment should favour pla%orms with strong originaon, operaonal value c reaon capability, prudent financing assumpons and clear exit discipline, whi le connued pressure on distribuons and concentrated fundraising reinforce the need to be selecve on pacing, manager access and por%olio construcon. Page 11 Markets Update (con&nued) Asset Class Update Private Credit: Overview: The first six months of 2026 have reinforced that Private Cred it remains structurally supported, but the market is moving into a potenally more demanding phase. The asset class connues to benefit from borrower demand for flexi ble non-bank financing and investor appete for income, yet the backdrop i s less benign than in the earlier period of rapid growth. Floang-rate income and contractual cash flows connue to support returns, but higher-for-longer financing costs, borrower margin pressure and sector-specific disrupon are making credit selecon more important. Pricing, Spreads & Terms: A notable development over the first six months of 2026 has bee n the modest widening of spreads aQer a period of ghter lender economics . This is because of more cauous underwring in technology and soQware-relate d loans, some pressure in Business Development Company (‘BDC’) and other similar wealth- channel vehicles (which may actually prove to improve compe ve dynamics for more instuonally focussed lenders) - and a renewed focus o n ensuring that lenders are adequately compensated for risk. While wider spreads are direconally favourable for new len ding, they should not be read as uniformly posive. The improvement in lender econ omics is occurring alongside greater borrower stress in some cases and a real re inforcement of the need for: (i) more scruny of leverage capacity; and (ii) a mo re conservave approach to documentaon, covenant protecon and downside structuring. Deployment & Market Ac vity: Originaon acvity in the first half of the year has remained m ore measured than many market parcipants expected, reflecng a sll uneven M&A environment and connued cauon around Private Equity deployment. There con nues to be growing deal-flow across alternave (to direct lending) str ategies including credit secondaries and asset-backed financing, as such are demonst rang an ability to provide helpful diversificaon to core direct lending expos ures which have historically been where most of the investor capital has been directed. The opportunity set is therefore improving, but in a more nuanced way than a simple volume recovery would suggest. Well-capitalised managers should benefit from bePer pricing and selecve deployment opportunies, whileweaker borrowers and less differenated borrowers may face a more difficult refinancing environment. Credit Quality &Risk Trends: Credit stress in first six months of the 2026 appears to remain largely idiosyncrac rather than systemic, but warning indicators have become mor e visible. Areas of focus include consumer-exposed businesses, higher-value legacy assets and soQware & technology credits affected by AI disrupon. Fundraising & Capital Forma on: Fundraising over the period has highlighted a shiQ in invest or appete away from undifferenated direct lending and toward a broader mix of Pr ivate Credit strategies. Opportunisc credit, credit secondaries and asset-backed finance appear to be receiving greater aPenon as investors look for differe nated sources of return and downside protecon. Capital formaon also remains concentrated among larger, e stablished pla%orms with deep originaon networks, restructuring capability a nd stronger por%olio transparency. For investors, this reinforces the need to disnguish between scale as a structural advantage and scale as a potenal source of crow ding or return compression. Wealth Channel & LiquidityConsidera ons: The wealth channel has become a more important area of scrun y in the first six months of 2026. Redempon limits and gang pressures in semi -liquid vehicles highlight the tension between relavely illiquid underlyi ng loans and investor demand for periodic liquidity, parcularly aQer several ye ars of rapid growth in evergreen structures. For instuonal investors, this is less a reason to avoid Pri vate Credit than a reminder that fund structure maPers. Closed-end, drawdown and evergreen vehicles can offer materially different liquidity profiles, v aluaon dynamics and investor behaviour, even where the underlying credit exposures appear similar . Page 12 Markets Update (con&nued) Asset Class Update Outlook & LP Implica ons: The backdrop seen over the first half of the calendar year sugg ests Private Credit remains aPracve as an income-oriented allocaon, but outc omes are likely to become more manager-specific as the market moves from rapid e xpansion into selecve maturaon. UK Property: Since the start of the year, recovery in theUK property market has stalled as buyers and sellers remain cauous amid geopolical uncertainty, d omesc polical developments, and the level of interest rates. Commercial p roperty investment volumes reached £10.2bn in Q2 2026, down 20% on the previous q uarter . While acvity remains below long-term averages, transacon volumes are higher than the subdued levels seen in 2023, when higher interest rates and f alling capital values weighed on investor demand. Pricing has soQened in parts of t he market, parcularly logiscs and living sectors. In the industrialsector, investors are cauous about high prices i.e. compressed yields and in the housing m arket affordability pressures are front of mind. As a result, all-property total returns moderated to around 6% in the 12 months to 30 June 2026 from the mid-6% range three months earlier. Prime yields across most sectors now sit close to 10 -year highs apart from retail parks where limited supply connues to support pricing. Income is a key component of the total return from commercial property. For the 12 months to end June 2026, income accounted for roughly 95% o f the 12-month total return, with capital appreciaon accounng for around 5%. This highlights the importance of contractual rental income as the primary driv er of returns in the current market environment. While vacancy levels vary across sectors, ranging from low single digits in residenal and retail to around 20% in th e office market, rental growth has remained broadly posive. Annual rental growth h as generally been in the low-to-mid single digits across property sectors, supporng income returns and demonstrang the robustness of occupier demand. In summary, although transacon markets remain cauous, con strained occupier markets connue to support rental growth and underpin the se ctor's income-led returns. Infrastructure: At a generic level, private Infrastructure delivered returns of approximately 10% per annum gross of fees. In 2025, power generaon and ulies wer e the strongest- performing sector, followed by digital infrastructure. Th ese sectors are being supported by accelerang electricity demand from electrifi caon, expanding data centre capacity and demographic trends in selected markets. In 2026, three themes are persisng: project finance and AI da ta centres, how renewables depend on policy makers and the bifurcaon of the market, and the impact of the Middle East conflict. These themes are explored below: - Project finance acvity surged 53.6% to $682.7 billion, driv en by a 64.1% jump in primary financings, as hyperscalers' data centre buildouts translated into record volumes. Capital connues to gravitate toward AI and data centre themes, with the US leading an AI-driven digital transformaon that has prop elled a “power supercycle” in the sector . - Renewables are presenng a mixed and increasingly policy-sensive picture in 2026. In the US, legislaon required physical construcon to begin by 4 July 2026 to qualify for full federal tax credits. This triggered a 'use it or lose it' wave of transacons, as developers raced to monese safe-harboured posions before the window closed. However, beneath this policy-driven rush, underlying dealvolumes soQened in 2025 as buyers pivoted towards established developer pla%orms a nd de-risked, Power Purchase Agreement-backed por%olios rather than greenfiel d projects. Europe faces issues with slow permiGng and grid connecon boPlenec ks connuing to delay project development. The recent geopolical events in the Middle East have affecte d the Infrastructure asset class in several ways including: - Energy: The reinforcement of energy security as a key policypriority, with increased emphasis on domesc generaon capacity to reduce dependenc e on imported energy. - Transport: Disrupon to air passenger travel albeit that passenger volumes remain above prior-year levels on a year-to-date basis (Internao nal Air Transport Associaon as of April 2026). Page 13 Markets Update (con&nued) Asset Class Update - Shipping: the fact that free access to waterways may not be a given and how crical certain sea channels are to global logiscs. Fundraising acvity was subdued in the first half of 2026, with Infrastructure funds raising approximately $40 billion (Source: Infrastructur e Investor based on final closes), represenng a new low following record levels in 2025. Further, as is being seen elsewhere in private markets, flows are favouring very l arge fund managers like KKR where fund raises are oQen more than $10bn. Looking ahead, the outlook in general looks stable. Within the renewable sector, the key swing factors will be the post-deadline normalisaon of US deal flow now that the tax credit safe-harbour window has closed, and whether E uropean permiGng and grid reforms can unlock the large pipeline of consented-but-stalled projects. Other Alterna&ves: It is hard to generalise about nature-based soluons as a market given its diversity; it ranges from mberland, row crops (cereals and beans), per manent crops (fruits and nuts), alongside more Private Equity soluons and carbo n offsets etc. Within this spectrum there are core stabilised iniaves and others that seek to change the use of land and the way the land is operang. Below are some the mes that are emerging from around the world: - The EU is facing its most damaging cereal season in years, dri ven by repeated heatwaves. The US wheat forecasts are also expected to be down. Furthermore, there have been some headwinds with increased input costs li ke fuel and ferliser . - In Canada and Russia wheat producon is rotang into other higher value crops like oilseed. - The US mber market remains soQ weighed down by a weak housing market. That said there is an expectaon of a measured recovery with i ncreased consumpon and a soQening of volume as supplies from Canada r educe reflecng US tariffs but also from infecon, wildfires and land set-aside. - Geopolics can also affect agricultural commodies be that i n the cost of transportaon or just regions being affected by uncertainty i.e. Ukraine’s producon. Page 14 Por?olio Statement and Asset Class Alloca&on Por?olio Statement Asset Class Alloca&on Asset Class As at 31 Mar 2026 (£m) As at 30 Jun 2026 (£m) As at 31 Mar 2026 (%) As at 30 Jun 2026 (%) Listed Equity 1,018.4 60.9889.4 57.2 Private Equity 2.1 0.12.4 0.2 Property 143.7 8.6189.6 12.2 Infrastructure 75.8 4.574.7 4.8 Other Alternaves 68.4 4.170.4 4.5 Private Credit 70.2 4.270.7 4.5 Credit 146.6 8.8141.3 9.1 UK Govt Bonds 100.5 6.0101.6 6.5 Cash 47.3 2.814.6 0.9 Total Scheme 1,673.0 -1,554.7 - Listed Equity 61% Private Equity 0% Property 9% Infrastructure 5% Other Alterna&ves 4% Private Credit 4% Credit 9% UK Govt Bonds 6% Cash 3% Asset Class Alloca&on as at Jun 2026 Source: Northern Trust Page 16 Por?olio Statement Asset Class Weight vs Target Asset Alloca&on 0 20 40 60 Listed Equity Private Equity Property Infrastructure Other Alternatives Private Credit Credit UK Govt Bonds Cash 0 20 40 60 80 Listed Equity Private Equity Property Infrastructure Other Alternatives Private Credit Credit UK Govt Bonds Cash Asset Class Target ranges (%) Actual (%) Target (%) Difference Listed Equity 39.0 - 59.0 60.9 49.0 +11.9 Private Equity 0.0 - 12.0 0.1 8.0 -7.9 Property 4.0 - 13.0 8.6 8.0 +0.6 Infrastructure 4.0 - 12.0 4.5 8.0 -3.5 Other Alternaves 2.0 - 8.0 4.1 5.0 -0.9 Private Credit 4.0 - 12.0 4.2 8.0 -3.8 Credit 4.0 - 10.0 8.8 7.0 +1.8 UK Govt Bonds 2.0 - 12.0 6.0 7.0 -1.0 Cash 0.0 - 5.0 2.8 0.0 +2.8 Key Target Ranges Actual Bar represents Target Weight Source: Northern Trust Page 17 Update to Investment Strategy Statement (ISS) Implementa&on Plan Proposed transacons are indicave and subject to change at the discreon of the porolio manager, including in response to market condions. Investments and strategies referenced involve risks, as outlined in the risk disclosures available on the client portal (here). Esmated transacon costs include, as relevant, both explicit costs (broker commissions, taxes and levies, custody and se(lement charges, and transion manager fees) and implicit costs (bid-offer spreads, market impact, and FX conversion costs). Figures are esmates and actual costs may differ. Update to Investment Strategy Statement (ISS) Implementa&on Plan As at 30 June 2026 *All amounts shown reflect the latest agreed implementaon p lan. Since the last update, the implementaon plan has been agreed, and implementaon acvity is expected to commence shortly. Acve equity allocaons will be consolidated into Listed Equity, while passive equity holdings will be consolidated into the LGIM Future World Equity Fund with FX hedging maintained. Emerging market exposure will be transioned into Listed Equity. The Scheme is expected to remain overweight to Listed Equity while private market allocaons are rebuilt over me. Commitments to Infrastructure and Private Debt have been idenfied to support progress towards strategic target allocaons. Other Alternaves is expected to be redeemed from, with proceeds recycled into other private market opportunies. Further discussions are required regarding responsible investment priories and local investment opportunies to ensure alignment with the Fund's broader strategic objecves. Investment Amount Trade method Target Implementa&on date Sell Listed Equity £62m Transion Manager Jul-Sep 2026 Buy Listed Equity £70m Transion Manager Jul-Sep 2026 Sell Listed Equity £73m Transion Manager Jul-Sep 2026 Sell Listed Equity £88m Transion Manager Jul-Sep 2026 Sell Listed Equity £341m Transion Manager Jul-Sep 2026 Buy Listed Equity £70m Transion Manager Jul-Sep 2026 Buy Listed Equity £400m Transion Manager Jul-Sep 2026 Buy Credit £20m Cash Jul-Sep 2026 Sell Other Alterna&ves £28m Cash 2026/27 Page 19 Update to Investment Strategy Statement (ISS) Implementa&on Plan As at 30 June 2026 Investment Amount Trade method Target Implementa&on date Commitment to Infrastructure £50m Cash Jul-Sep 2026 Instruct Property £60m Cash 12 – 24 months Commitment to Private Debt £70m Cash Before Dec 2026 Commitment to Private Equity £110m Cash 12- 18 months Commitment to Private Equity £20m Cash 12 – 18 months *All amounts shown reflect the latest agreed implementaon p lan. Page 20 Investment Performance Investment Performance By Asset Class Current Quarter FYTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 YearsAUM30/06/2026 Asset Class £m Fund Index Fund Fund Fund Fund Index Index Index IndexRel Rel Rel Rel Rel Listed Equity 1,018.4 14.5 14.7 -0.1 14.5 14.7 26.4 27.4 18.0 18.7 11.0 12.0-0.1 -1.0 -0.7 -1.0 Private Equity 2.1 -4.9 15.2 -20.1 -4.9 15.2 1.7 32.4 -3.8 22.5 -3.2 16.4-20.1 -30.7 -26.4 -19.7 Property 143.7 -0.3 1.4 -1.7 -0.3 1.4 -0.8 6.6 2.2 4.1 0.8 3.9-1.7 -7.4 -1.9 -3.1 Infrastructure 75.8 1.8 1.9 -0.2 1.8 1.9 5.5 7.9 7.7 8.0 10.4 7.4-0.2 -2.3 -0.3 2.9 Other Alternaves 68.4 3.1 2.5 0.6 3.1 2.5 14.9 10.6 5.9 9.9 3.6 7.80.6 4.3 -4.0 -4.2 Private Credit 70.2 1.3 1.5 -0.2 1.3 1.5 4.2 6.2 8.3 6.5 7.9 6.2-0.2 -2.1 1.8 1.7 Credit 146.6 3.7 2.0 1.7 3.7 2.0 7.2 8.4 9.0 9.2 4.4 7.71.7 -1.2 -0.1 -3.4 UK Government Bonds 100.5 -1.0 -1.1 0.0 -1.0 -1.1 2.2 2.1 -1.2 -1.2 -7.7 -7.70.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 Cash 47.3 0.8 0.9 -0.1 0.8 0.9 6.4 3.9 3.8 4.6 3.9 3.4-0.1 2.6 -0.8 0.5 Total Scheme 1,673.0 8.9 8.9 0.0 8.9 8.9 16.6 18.2 11.8 12.5 6.7 8.00.0 -1.6 -0.7 -1.3 Source: Northern Trust Page 22 Investment Performance Commentary The Scheme returned 8.9% over the quarter, and 16.6% for the 1 2 months to end June 2026. The Scheme's long-term return objective is 6.7% p.a. Performance was in line with the benchmark over the quarter, with the Scheme returning 8.9%, matching the benchmark. The Scheme returned 16.6% over the 12-month period, compared with 18.2% for the benchmark. Over the longer term, the Scheme returned 11.8% p.a. over 3 ye ars and 6.7% p.a. over 5 years, exceeding its objective over 3 years and meeting it over 5 years. Positive returns over the quarter were driven primarily by L isted Equity, supported by strong global equity markets. Cr edit, Infrastructure and Other Alternatives also contribu ted positively. The underperformance relative to the benchmark over longer time periods is mainly due to the build up of the private marke ts programme. As these exposures are drawn it is not uncommon for funds not to generate target returns. Periods such as this demonstrate the benefits of a diversifi ed portfolio. While returns can differ from the benchmark ov er shorter periods, the Scheme remains positioned to meet its long-term investment objective. Page 23 Por?olio Update Por?olio Update Listed Equity (con&nued) Por?olio Update Listed Equity Investment Strategy Summary The Scheme holds a significant allocaon to Listed Equity at 60.9%, which remains well above the Strategic Asset Allocaon target of 49%. The overw eight posion provides liquidity to fund the planned rebuilding of private market a llocaons as well as increased exposures to UK government bonds. The agreed implementaonplan will consolidate acve holdings into the London CIV Core Global Equity Fund and pass ive holdings into the LGIM Future World Equity Fund, with currency hedging maintainedon the laPer. Por?olio Ac&vity There was no acvity to report over the period. Investment Performance The Scheme’s passive equity exposures performed in line with their benchmark and expectaons. The acve equity exposure, via the LCIV Equity Value & LCIV Gl obal Alpha Growth Paris Aligned Funds, had good absolute quarters coming in at 13.8% & 12.8% respecvely versus 14.2% for the index. LCIV Global Equity Value fund connues to perform well outperforming its benchmark over the last 12 mon ths by 3.5%. The manager's opportunisc style idenfied idiosyncrac stock ideas, which helped performance. LCIV Global Alpha Growth fund has provided ann ualised returns of 12.2% and 11% over the last one and three years. However, its r elave underperformance is stark over the last one, three and five ye ars. Given this, LCIV has announced that it is changing this fund to a mul-manager strategy and will be substanally dilung the exposure to Baillie Gifford with the objecve of improving the performance of the fund. Current Quarter FYTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 YearsAUM Fund £m Fund Index Fund Fund Fund Fund Index Index Index IndexRel Rel Rel Rel Rel LCIV Global Equity Value Fund 92.3 13.8 14.2 -0.4 13.8 14.2 -0.4 31.1 27.7 3.5 - - - - - - LCIV Global Alpha Growth Paris Aligned Fund 75.4 12.8 14.3 -1.5 12.8 14.3 -1.5 12.2 28.2 -16.0 11.0 18.5 -7.5 2.5 12.4 -9.9 LGIM - Global Equies 425.2 14.4 14.5 -0.1 14.4 14.5 -0.1 27.1 27.4 -0.2 19.0 19.4 -0.4 11.9 12.1 -0.2 LGIM Future World Equity Fund 425.5 15.1 14.5 0.6 15.1 14.5 0.6 27.6 28.2 -0.6 18.6 18.7 -0.2 12.3 12.9 -0.6 Total 1,018.4 14.5 14.7 -0.1 14.5 14.7 26.4 27.4 18.0 18.7 11.0 12.0-0.1 -1.0 -0.7 -1.0 Source: Northern Trust Page 25 Por?olio Update Private Equity (con&nued) Por?olio Update Private Equity Investment Strategy Summary The Scheme is significantly underweight Private Equity rela ve to its Strategic Asset Allocaon target of 8%. The exisng Adams Street and LGT holdings are mature and returning capital. Rebuilding this allocaon is a key eleme nt of the implementaon plan, which idenfies commitments to a London CIV Private Equity soluon once available. Por?olio Ac&vity There were no significant transacons over the quarter . Investment Performance Holdings across Adams Street and LGT reflect investment acv ity which is ~15+ years old. Capital has largely been returned and as such is notgenerang meaningful performance contribuons. Programme returns since incep on (i.e. over the previous ~20 years) have largely been reasonable (and posive) when compared to returns generated from the asset class and decreases in NAVs are aPributable to the connued returning of investor capital as the programmes mature. The performance numbers in the table below are provided by Lon don Borough of Hillingdon's custodian. Due to the size and maturity of the p osions they are not representave of the real value that has been added through the programme over its lifeme. Current Quarter FYTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 YearsAUM Fund £m Fund Index Fund Fund Fund Fund Index Index Index IndexRel Rel Rel Rel Rel Adams Street Partnership 1.1 -8.2 15.2 -23.3 -8.2 15.2 -23.3 -1.4 32.4 -33.8 -8.7 22.5 -31.2 -6.7 16.4 -23.1 LGT (Crown) 1.0 -1.2 15.2 -16.3 -1.2 15.2 -16.3 5.3 32.4 -27.1 5.1 22.5 -17.4 3.2 16.4 -13.2 Total 2.1 -4.9 15.2 -20.1 -4.9 15.2 1.7 32.4 -3.8 22.5 -3.2 16.4-20.1 -30.7 -26.4 -19.7 Source: Northern Trust Private Market Fund valuaons at 30 Jun are based on underlying manager valuaons as at 31 Mar. As December is financial year-end for LCIV Private Market Funds, final December valuaons were unavailable when 31 Mar PF valuaons were prepared. As a result, most recent 3-month performance period presented is 30 Sep 25 to 31 Mar 26, rather than 31 Mar 26 to 30 Jun 26 Page 26 Por?olio Update Property (con&nued) Por?olio Update Property Investment Strategy Summary The Scheme's Property allocaon is slightly above its 8% Str ategic Asset Allocaon target. The implementaon plan ancipates a gradual reducon in Pro perty as proceeds become available from LCIV IREP . Por?olio Ac&vity The LCIV IREP soluon commenced in April 2025. The por%olio isapproximately 95% UK and 5% Global. Over a 3-year transion, sub-investment manager CBRE IM intends to move it towards the agreed 50% UK and 50% Global target model por%olio. AEW UK Core Plus Property Fund (currently in LCIV IREP) remain s suspended while the manager progresses asset disposals and asset management in iaves. AQer the current reporng period, AEW proposed a managed wind-down to return capital to investors in an orderly way while seeking to maximise the remaining por%olio's value. The Schroders Real Estate Fund is suspended following significant redempons, so investors without exisng redempon requests cannot currently redee m. The manager is selling assets to meet some redempons. The proposal clarifies the cu rrent plan, but progress depends on a successful sale and investors accepng exposure to the residual por%olio. An extraordinary meeng is expected before year-end to determine the final pathway. BlackRock UK Property Fund, also within LCIV IREP , increasedits redempon dealing charge following liquidity pressures and the need to sell assets below valuaon. BlackRock expects this to be temporary, but concerns have been raised about the adjustment's ming, communicaon and methodology. London CIV remains engaged w ith BlackRock and CBRE IM. Investment Performance IREP UK performance has primarily been affected by AEW UK Core P lus Property Fund, reflecng its connued suspension and asset realisaon programme, and by weaker returns from Patrizia Hanover Property Unit Trust an d UNITE UK Student Accommodaon Fund. Posive contribuons from Tritax Londo n Logiscs Unit Trust, Industrial Property Investment Fund and M&G SecuredProperty Income Fund partly offset these effects, highlighng the resilience of log iscs and income- focused real estate strategies. While short-term LCIV IREP Global performance remains below benchmark due to performance fee accruals, while since-incepon returns are broadly in line with the strategy's 10% p.a. target return objecve. Current Quarter FYTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 YearsAUM Fund £m Fund Index Fund Fund Fund Fund Index Index Index IndexRel Rel Rel Rel Rel AEW UK 8.7 -0.6 0.5 -1.1 -0.6 0.5 -1.1 -2.1 3.3 -5.4 3.5 3.3 0.2 0.6 2.4 -1.8 LCIV IREP - Global 5.1 -0.7 2.4 -3.1 -0.7 2.4 -3.1 - - - - - - - - - LCIV IREP - UK 129.8 -0.2 1.5 -1.7 -0.2 1.5 -1.7 -1.5 6.0 -7.5 - - - - - - Total 143.7 -0.3 1.4 -1.7 -0.3 1.4 -0.8 6.6 2.2 4.1 0.8 3.9-1.7 -7.4 -1.9 -3.1 Source: Northern Trust Page 27 Por?olio Update Infrastructure (con&nued) Por?olio Update Infrastructure Investment Strategy Summary The Scheme is underweight Infrastructure relave to its Str ategic Asset Allocaon target of 8%. The implementaon plan proposes an addional £50m commi tment to the asset class to move the allocaon towards target, funded from the Equityand Credit overweights. Por?olio Ac&vity There were no significant transacons over the quarter . Investment Performance The LCIV Infrastructure Fund’s underlying holdings have broad ly performed in line with expectaons and the benchmark over the long term. Recent returns have been impacted by sector underperformance across renewables and fibre (across four underlying fund investments: Macquarie MGREF2, Capital Dynamics CEI VIII, Equix VI and Basalt BIP III represenng ~40% of NAV as of Q1 2026) andmacro headwinds (increased discount rates and adverse currency movements). Performance to date has also been supported by an income yield albeit lags expect aons because of delays seen in moving greenfield assets through to operaons . The Macquarie Fund is in acve “harvest” with valuaons broadly held flat over the last year pending the eventual exit of remaining por%olio com panies. Longer term performance remains above the benchmark reflecng solid por %olio performance over me as well as strong exit outcomes. Current Quarter FYTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 YearsAUM Fund £m Fund Index Fund Fund Fund Fund Index Index Index IndexRel Rel Rel Rel Rel LCIV Infrastructure Fund 67.9 2.2 1.9 0.2 2.2 1.9 0.2 6.0 8.0 -2.0 8.0 8.0 -0.0 8.3 8.0 0.3 Macquarie Infrastructure Investments 7.8 -1.8 1.7 -3.5 -1.8 1.7 -3.5 1.6 6.8 -5.2 5.0 7.6 -2.6 13.0 6.5 6.4 Total 75.8 1.8 1.9 -0.2 1.8 1.9 5.5 7.9 7.7 8.0 10.4 7.4-0.2 -2.3 -0.3 2.9 Source: Northern Trust Private Market Fund valuaons at 30 Jun are based on underlying manager valuaons as at 31 Mar. As December is financial year-end for LCIV Private Market Funds, final December valuaons were unavailable when 31 Mar PF valuaons were prepared. As a result, most recent 3-month performance period presented is 30 Sep 25 to 31 Mar 26, rather than 31 Mar 26 to 30 Jun 26 Page 28 Por?olio Update Other Alterna&ves (con&nued) Por?olio Update Other Alterna&ves Investment Strategy Summary The Scheme's allocaon to Other Alternaves is slightly below its Strategic Asset Allocaon target at 4.1% vs. a target allocaon of 5%. Following the SAA review , the Scheme has decided to redeem from the Blackstone Dislocaon Fund, withproceeds recycled into other private market opportunies over me. The London CIV Absolu te Return Fund is retained for diversificaon purposes. Por?olio Ac&vity There were no significant transacons over the quarter . Investment Performance The LCIV Absolute Return Fund returned -1.3% in the quarter v ersus 1.7% for its cash plus benchmark. While disappoinng, this return is not unexpected, as the fund’s absolute return calls in gold, which performed exceponally in 2025, gave ba ck some profits, and the defensive credit protecon posions did not play out in the strong market condions. Current Quarter FYTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 YearsAUM Fund £m Fund Index Fund Fund Fund Fund Index Index Index IndexRel Rel Rel Rel Rel Blackstone Dislocaon Fund Europe 31.8 8.4 3.6 4.8 8.4 3.6 4.8 27.3 15.0 12.3 - - - - - - LCIV Absolute Return Fund 36.6 -1.3 1.7 -3.0 -1.3 1.7 -3.0 4.7 6.9 -2.2 3.6 7.7 -4.0 2.3 6.5 -4.2 Total 68.4 3.1 2.5 0.6 3.1 2.5 14.9 10.6 5.9 9.9 3.6 7.80.6 4.3 -4.0 -4.2 Source: Northern Trust Page 29 Por?olio Update Private Credit (con&nued) Por?olio Update Private Credit Investment Strategy Summary The Scheme is underweight Private Credit relave to its Stra tegic Asset Allocaon target of 8%. A material increase is required to reach target, and the i mplementaon plan proposes a commitment to the London CIV Private Debt Fund II ahead of its close later in theyear . Por?olio Ac&vity There were no significant transacons over the quarter . Investment Performance London Borough of Hillingdon has commiPed £70 million to LCI V Private Debt 1 in 2021. The fund is almost fully drawn. Returns have moderated over the last year in part reflecng FX movements but also the connued stabilising of some of the more recent fund commitments in the por%olio. The fund is now distribung and for the last 12 months to the end of March 2026 provided a yield of c. 11%. Performance connues to track expectaons for its underlyi ng fund investments and is broadly tracking/ ahead of its underlying benchmark over near and medium- term me horizons. For older fund posions, decreases in NAV are driven by the return of capital as vintages mature and not because of poor p erformance on underlying investments. Cashflow movements across funds may drive changes in me-wei ghted returns which are not associated with the performance of underlying fund investments. Current Quarter FYTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 YearsAUM Fund £m Fund Index Fund Fund Fund Fund Index Index Index IndexRel Rel Rel Rel Rel LCIV Private Debt Fund 62.4 1.4 1.5 -0.0 1.4 1.5 -0.0 4.9 6.0 -1.1 8.4 6.0 2.4 - - - M&G Debt Opportunies Fund II 0.2 2.1 1.9 0.2 2.1 1.9 0.2 18.3 7.8 10.4 -13.5 8.6 -22.1 3.2 7.5 -4.4 Permira Advisors LLP 7.6 0.7 1.9 -1.2 0.7 1.9 -1.2 -0.5 7.8 -8.3 7.1 8.6 -1.4 6.9 7.5 -0.6 Total 70.2 1.3 1.5 -0.2 1.3 1.5 4.2 6.2 8.3 6.5 7.9 6.2-0.2 -2.1 1.8 1.7 Source: Northern Trust Private Market Fund valuaons at 30 Jun are based on underlying manager valuaons as at 31 Mar. As December is financial year-end for LCIV Private Market Funds, final December valuaons were unavailable when 31 Mar PF valuaons were prepared. As a result, most recent 3-month performance period presented is 30 Sep 25 to 31 Mar 26, rather than 31 Mar 26 to 30 Jun 26 Page 30 Por?olio Update Credit (con&nued) Por?olio Update Credit Investment Strategy Summary The Scheme's Credit allocaon is slightly above its Strateg ic Asset Allocaon target of 7%. The overweight posion offsets the current underweight to Pr ivate Credit and provides a source of funding for private market drawdowns as the implementaon plan progresses. Por?olio Ac&vity There were no significant transacons over the quarter . Investment Performance The LCIV MAC Fund had a strong quarter to 30 June 2026, up 3.7% vs 2. 0% for its Cash plus benchmark. Both sub managers in the fund remain foc used on capital preservaon, income generaon and disciplined risk management. While valuaons in parts of the credit market appear full (spread compression leading to insufficient risk compensaon), por%olio construcon connues to empha sise diversificaon, quality and security selecon. Over a 12 month period it appears the fund has underperformed its benchmark. It should however be noted that the current benchmark is challe nging and not reflecve of its investable universe; it is therefore under r eview. The fund has performed well against its peers and other credit benchmarks. Current Quarter FYTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 YearsAUM Fund £m Fund Index Fund Fund Fund Fund Index Index Index IndexRel Rel Rel Rel Rel LCIV MAC Fund 146.6 3.7 2.0 1.7 3.7 2.0 1.7 7.2 8.4 -1.2 9.0 9.2 -0.1 - - - Total 146.6 3.7 2.0 1.7 3.7 2.0 7.2 8.4 9.0 9.2 4.4 7.71.7 -1.2 -0.1 -3.4 Source: Northern Trust Page 31 Por?olio Update UK Govt Bonds (con&nued) Por?olio Update UK Government Bonds Investment Strategy Summary The Scheme's allocaon to UK Government Bonds is slightly below its Strategic Asset Allocaon target of 7%. The implementaon plan idenfies a modest increase to the index- linked gilt allocaon, reflecng the relave aPracveness o f bond yields and the diversificaon benefits of high-quality government securies. Por?olio Ac&vity There were no significant transacons over the quarter . Investment Performance The Index-Linked Gilts Fund returned –1.0% for the quarter in line with its benchmark. Current Quarter FYTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 YearsAUM Fund £m Fund Index Fund Fund Fund Fund Index Index Index IndexRel Rel Rel Rel Rel LGIM All Stocks Index Linked Gilts Index Fund 100.5 -1.0 -1.1 0.0 -1.0 -1.1 0.0 2.2 2.1 0.0 -1.2 -1.2 -0.0 -7.7 -7.7 0.0 Total 100.5 -1.0 -1.1 0.0 -1.0 -1.1 2.2 2.1 -1.2 -1.2 -7.7 -7.70.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 Source: Northern Trust Page 32 Responsible Investment This quarter, extreme heat and wildfires brought physical cl imate risks into sharp focus, coincidentally aligning withboth London Climate Acon Week and the publicaon of London CIV'sTCFD report. Elsewhere, the 2026 vong season saw shareholders raising human rights and AI-related concerns, as well as challenging banks on a variety of issues. London CIV also supported a shareholder co-filing at BP , one of the world's largest carbon emiPers, through a shareholder resoluon on fossil fuel financing transparency. Escala&ng physical risks Over the past quarter, severe heatwaves, wildfire outbreaks and droughts across Europe, North America and Asia provided a stark reminder that physical climate risks are not just a future concern but a current economic reality. The UK recorded its highest e ver June temperature of 37.7°C at Strumpshaw Hill, Norfolk, with more than 150 individual weather staons across the cou ntry also breaking their previous June records. 1 In Europe, sustained heat and drought are driving one of the m ost severe wildfire seasons on record, with an area four mes t he size of Paris burning in France's Gironde region alone,2 and esmated economic impacts of over €3 billion across Europ e.3 Canada recorded more than 1,700 wildfires and over 166,000 he ctares burned by mid-June 4, while a heatwave across South Asia pushed temperatures above 46°C in parts of India and Pakistan in April, contribung tomulple deaths and disrupng outdoor work for an esmated 380 million people.5 London Climate Ac&on Week In June, London Climate Acon Week took place, convening investors, companies and policymakers to share ideas and collaborate on climate acon. London CIV aPended several events across a range of topics including invesng for the transion, adaptaon and resilience, and nature-related risks and opportunies. The consensus across the week was that the climate transion is happening, but more slowly and unevenly than hoped. Capital connues to flow into climate soluons at record levels, parcularly ele ctrificaon and renewables, but policy uncertainty, infras tructure boPlenecks and cross-sector coordinaon are increasingly significant barriers. Exceeding the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C goal is becoming increasingly unavoidable, with warming of around 1.8-2.4°C now more likely. One way that investors are responding is thr ough increasing the focus on real-world decarbonisaon thr ough company alignment and engagement, recognising some of the limitaons of tradional intensity metrics for tracking progress. 1 Met Office (2026) June 2026 heatwave: A recap of the temperature records. Available at: h6ps://www.metoffice.gov.uk/blog/2026/june-2026-heatwave-a-recap-of-the-temperature-records 2 Reuters (2026) Massive wildfire burns 42,000 hectares in Gironde, southwestern France. Available at: h6ps://www.reutersconnect.com/item/massive-wildfire-burns-42000-hectares-in-gironde-southwestern- france/dGFnOnJldXRlcnMuY29tLDIwMjY6bmV3c21sX01UMUFOQURMMDAwRjdSMDJW 3 Financial Times (2026) European wildfire costs this year have already surpassed €3bn. Available at: h6ps://www.H.com/content/ef7f88ca-3dc0-49c7-b995-05b1de69cc74 4 Government of Canada (2026) Government of Canada provides update regarding 2026 wildfires. Available at:h6ps://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/ar&cles/government-canada-provides-regarding-2026-195000041.html 5 Al Jazeera (2026) A calamity: Why is a record heatwave sweeping South Asia? Available at: h6ps://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/5/8/a-calamity-why-is-a-record-heatwave-sweeping-south-asia Responsible Investment Q2 26 Overview and London CIV highlights Page 34 The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) Report 2026 June also saw the publicaon ofLondon CIV’s annual TCFD report, outlining London CIV’s approach to monitoring and managing the climate risk exposure of its funds. Key highlights from the report include: London CIV met its target of reducing the Scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity of its Authorised Contractual Scheme (ACS) funds to below 38 tCO₂e/mGBP , represenng a 35% reducon relave to its 2020 baseline emissions. London CIV achieved its target of becoming operaonally carbon neutral in 2025, in line with its Climate Acon Plan and net zero ambions, by supporng two high-quality, verified carbon removal projects that also deliver wider environmental and social benefits. Further details are available in the full report, which can be found on the London CIV website:h6ps://londonciv.org.uk/climate-change. Co-Filing a Shareholder Resolu&on at BP Given BP's standing as one of the world's largest emiPers and its retreat from prior climate commitments, London CIV co-filed a resoluon led by Australian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR) at BP’s annual general meeng (AGM) in April 2026, alongside other investors, calling for greater transparency on capital allocaon to new oil and gas projects and exploraon, with a focus on demonstrang the financial value to shareholders and resilience under low-demand scenarios. The resoluon received 28.85% shareholder support, the highest ever vote for a management -opposed resoluon at BP . As this exceeds the 20% threshold under the UK Corporate Governance Code, BP is required to explain what acon it plans to take in response within six months of the vote, with a further update in its next annual report. Co-filers included NEST , Wales Pension Partnership, Greater Manchester Pension Fund and Merseyside Pension Fund, with support from LGIM and other investors, and backing from proxy advisory firms including Glass Lewis. London CIV is connuing to work with ACCR and other co-filers to monitor BP's response following the AGM, alongside engagement with its investment manager . 2026 Vo&ng Season The 2026 proxy vong season saw a reducon in the number of shareholder proposals 6, partly driven by changes to the US regulatory landscape, including the Securies and Exchange Commission stepping back from reviewing exclusion requests. This has given companies more scope to leave proposals off the ballot without regulatory sign-off. 7 Other key themes included: Major banks faced connued shareholder pressure over the soQening of fossil fuel financing policies and transion commitments8. 6 Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance (2026) The 2026 Proxy Season: Shareholder Proposal Trends. Available at:h6ps://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2026/06/11/the-2026-p roxy-season-shareholder-proposal-trends/ 7 Holland & Knight (2026) SEC Reshapes Shareholder Proposal Review: A New Approach for the 2026 Proxy Season. Available at:h6ps://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publica&ons/2026/02 /sec-reshapes-shareholder-proposal-review-a-new-approach 8 DeSmog (2026) Fossil Fuel Financing Surged to $906 Billion in 2025 as Big Banks Retreat From Climate Promises. Available at:Fossil Fuel Financing Surged to $906 Billion in 2025 as Big Ban ks Retreat From Climate Promises - DeSmog Page 35 Human rights proposals remained a key theme, calling for stronger due diligence and independent assessment of corporate human rights pracces, although acvity was lower than in 20259. AI-related proposals gained tracon, focusing on governance, cybersecurity oversight and the sustainability implicaons of growing datacentre demand10. London CIV Vo&ng Ac&vi&es Over the quarter, London CIV voted on 11,932 proposals (99% vong execuon), vong against management proposals on 1,535 occasions and supporng shareholder proposals on 354 occasions. In the first half of 2026, London CIV received LAPFF vong alerts covering 71 resoluons. Of these, 18 related to companies that were not held in any London CIV fund. Of the remaining 53 resoluons on which London CIV voted, 51 votes were cast inline with LAPFF recommendaons, with two instances of divergence: NVIDIA: LAPFF supported Resoluon 7, which requested addional disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the use of Nvidia's sold products. London CIV voted against the resoluon as the company already discloses Scope 3 emission s across mulple categories, has an SBTi-validated target r elang to emissions from the use of sold graphics processing unit products, and has commiPed to expanding its Scope 3 disclosures. London CIV therefore did not consider the addional disclosure requested by the resoluon necessary at this stage and will connue to monitor progress. Toyota: LAPFF recommended vong against Resoluon 1, the re-elecon of Chair Akio Toyoda, cing concerns regarding investor engagement and oversight of responsible mineral sourcing. London CIV voted in favour of the resoluon, as ongoing engagement through its stewardship provider, EOS at Federated Hermes, indicated that the company is recepve to engagement and is considering steps to strengthen its responsible mineral sourcing pracces. Given this, London CIV considered connued engagement more appropriate than vong against the Chair at this stage and will connue to monitor progress. 9 Sierra Club (2026)KeyVotes andMajorTrends forthe2026ShareholderMee ngSea son. Available at: h6ps://www.sierraclub.org/topics/sustainable-finance. 10 Glass Lewis (2026)ALookat2026BigTech ShareholderProposals . Available at: h6ps://www.glasslewis.com/ar&cle/a-look-at-2026-big-tech-shareholder-proposals. Page 36 Appendices Appendix 1 Full Valua&on Statement as at end June 2026 (con&nued) Appendix 1 Full Valua&on Statement as at end June 2026 Asset Class Fund 31/03/2026 (£m) 30/06/2026 (£m) Change (£m) Listed Equity LCIV Global Equity Value Fund 81.06 92.26 11.20 LCIV Global Alpha Growth Paris Aligned Fund 66.84 75.40 8.56 LGIM - Global Equies 371.75 425.23 53.47 LGIM Future World Equity Fund 369.70 425.52 55.82 Private Equity Adams Street Partnership 1.25 1.11 -0.14 LGT (Crown) 1.10 1.00 -0.10 Property AEW UK 8.83 8.70 -0.13 LCIV IREP - Global - 5.14 5.14 LCIV IREP - UK - 129.79 129.79 UBS - Triton Property Unit Trust 0.03 0.03 - CBRE Indirect Real Estate 180.74 - - Infrastructure LCIV Infrastructure Fund 66.77 67.95 1.18 Macquarie Infrastructure Investments 7.97 7.82 -0.14 Other Alternaves Blackstone Dislocaon Fund Europe 33.35 31.80 -1.55 LCIV Absolute Return Fund 37.09 36.60 -0.48 Private Credit LCIV Private Debt Fund 62.63 62.40 -0.23 M&G Debt Opportunies Fund II 0.20 0.20 0.00 Permira Advisors LLP 7.90 7.59 -0.31 Credit LCIV MAC Fund 141.33 146.60 5.27 UK Govt Bonds LGIM All Stocks Index Linked Gilts Index Fund 101.61 100.55 -1.06 Cash Cash & Other Assets 14.55 47.33 32.78 Total 1,554.71 1,673.03 299.06 Source: Northern Trust IREP Cash separated into the Cash Asset Class from Jun-26 Page 38 Private Markets valuations shown in this report are sourced from custody statements and may differ from accounting valuations. The underlying cause of these differences is being investigated with the relevant parties and is expected to be addressed by the next reporting period Appendix 2 Full Investment Performance in GBP (con&nued) Appendix 2 Full Investment Performance in GBP Current Quarter FYTD 1 Year 3 Years 5 YearsAUM Fund £m Fund Index Fund Fund Fund FundIndex Index Index IndexRel Rel Rel Rel Rel LCIV Global Equity Value Fund 92.3 13.8 14.2 -0.4 13.8 14.2 -0.4 31.1 27.7 3.5 - - - - - - LCIV Global Alpha Growth Paris Aligned Fund 75.4 12.8 14.3 -1.5 12.8 14.3 -1.5 12.2 28.2 -16.0 11.0 18.5 -7.5 2.5 12.4 -9.9 LGIM - Global Equies 425.2 14.4 14.5 -0.1 14.4 14.5 -0.1 27.1 27.4 -0.2 19.0 19.4 -0.4 11.9 12.1 -0.2 LGIM Future World Equity Fund 425.5 15.1 14.5 0.6 15.1 14.5 0.6 27.6 28.2 -0.6 18.6 18.7 -0.2 12.3 12.9 -0.6 Adams Street Partnership 1.1 -8.2 15.2 -23.3 -8.2 15.2 -23.3 -1.4 32.4 -33.8 -8.7 22.5 -31.2 -6.7 16.4 -23.1 LGT (Crown) 1.0

London Borough of Hillingdon Pension Fund Funding update report at 30 June 2026 This report is addressed to the Administering Authority of the London Borough of Hillingdon Pension Fund (the Fund). This document should be read in conjunction with the Fund's Funding Strategy Statement (FSS). The purpose of this report is to provide the funding position of the London Borough of Hillingdon Pension Fund as at 30 June 2026 and show how it has changed since the previous valuation at 31 March 2025. This report has not been prepared for use for any other purpose and should not be so used. The report should not be disclosed to any third party except as required by law or regulatory obligation or with our prior written consent. Hymans Robertson LLP accept no liability where the report is used by or disclosed to a third party unless such liability has been expressly accepted in writing. Where permitted, the report may only be released or otherwise disclosed in a complete form which fully discloses the advice and the basis on which it is given. The figures presented in this report are prepared only for the purposes of providing an illustrative funding position and have no validity in other circumstances. This report also contains the data and assumptions underlying the results and the reliances and limitations which apply to them. Surplus/(deficit) £0.33bn +£0.12bn vs last valuation Funding level 124% +6% vs last valuation Required return 4.5% -0.6% vs last valuation Return likelihood 88% +2% vs last valuation 16 September 2026 Page 1 of 12 Results Funding position update The table on this page shows the estimated funding position at 30 June 2026 on the Fund's Ongoing basis (as defined in the Fund's FSS). The table also shows what future investment return would be required for the Fund to be 100% funded, along with the likelihood of the investment strategy achieving this return. The equivalent results at 31 March 2025 on the Ongoing basis are shown for comparison. An increase in the likelihood corresponds to an improvement in the funding position (and vice versa). Please note that the asset value at 30 June 2026 shown in this report may differ to the actual asset value at that date. The asset value in this report is an estimate based on a rollforward from 31 March 2025 using estimated cashflows (see section A2) and estimated investment returns (see section A3). This approach ensures the asset value is consistent with the liabilities and gives a more reliable estimate of the funding position than if the actual asset value was used. Ongoing basis 31 March 2025 30 June 2026 Assets 1.41 1.71 Liabilities Active members 0.28 0.39 Deferred pensioners 0.28 0.33 Pensioners 0.64 0.66 Total liabilities 1.20 1.38 Surplus/(deficit) 0.21 0.33 Funding level 118% 124% Required return (% pa)* 5.1% 4.5% Likelihood of achieving this return 86% 88% * Future investment return for funding level to be 100% Monetary amounts in £bn 16 September 2026 Page 2 of 12 Understanding the funding level To help better understand the funding level, the chart below shows how the funding level varies with the assumed rate of future investment returns at 31 March 2025 and 30 June 2026. The percentages next to each point on the lines show the likelihood of the investment strategy achieving that return at the respective date (for further details see section A4). The solid-coloured point indicates the funding level on the Fund's chosen assumptions. Assumed future investment return (% pa) Funding level 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 31 Mar 2025 30 Jun 2026 3.5% 4.5% 5.5% 6.5% 7.5% 8.5%60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 16 September 2026 Page 3 of 12 Funding level progression The chart below shows how the funding level has progressed between 31 March 2025 and 30 June 2026. It allows for changes in market conditions and other factors described in Appendix B. Funding level FundingLevel 31 Mar 2025 30 Apr 2025 31 May 2025 30 Jun 2025 31 Jul 2025 31 Aug 2025 30 Sep 2025 31 Oct 2025 30 Nov 2025 31 Dec 2025 31 Jan 2026 28 Feb 2026 31 Mar 2026 30 Apr 2026 31 May 2026 30 Jun 2026 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 16 September 2026 Page 4 of 12 Next steps Change in funding level since the last valuation is to be expected due to the volatile nature of both the Fund's assets and liabilities. However, understanding the factors underlying the change may help inform the Fund's ongoing monitoring of its funding strategy and risk management. The results at 30 June 2026 in this report are estimates based on rolling forward the fund's funding position from 31 March 2025. You should understand the methodology and limitations of this approach described in Appendices B and C, and that factors such as changes to the investment strategy and membership profile may not be fully reflected in the results. No decisions should be made solely on the results in this report. Please get in touch with your Hymans Robertson contact if you wish to discuss the results in this report further. 16 September 2026 Page 5 of 12 Appendix A - Data and assumptions A.1 Membership data The membership data underlying the figures in this report was supplied by the fund for the purpose of the valuation at 31 March 2025 and is summarised below: 31 March 2025 Number Avg. age Accrued benefit (£k pa) Payroll (£k pa) Active members 8,454 55.9 29,976 198,053 Deferred pensioners 15,172 55.2 27,092 Pensioners and dependants 8,641 70.8 54,260 Average ages are weighted by liability. The membership is assumed to evolve over time in line with the demographic assumptions described in the Fund's FSS. Please see Appendix B for details of the rollforward methodology which includes the estimated changes in membership data which have been allowed for. A.2 Cashflows since the valuation at 31 March 2025 We have allowed for the following cashflows in estimating the assets and liabilities at 30 June 2026. Estimated cashflows (£k) 31 March 2025 to 30 June 2026 Employer contributions 58,153 Employee contributions 16,807 Benefits paid 77,883 Cashflows are assumed to be paid daily. Contributions are based on the estimated payroll, certified employer contributions (including any lump sum contributions) and the average employee contribution rate at 31 March 2025. Benefits paid are projections based on the membership at 31 March 2025. 16 September 2026 Page 6 of 12 A.3 Investment returns since the valuation at 31 March 2025 Investment strategy Actual/ index From To Return Whole fund Actual 1 April 2025 30 June 2026 21.51% The total investment return for the whole period is 21.51%. A.4 Financial assumptions Assumption 31 March 2025 30 June 2026 Funding basis Ongoing Ongoing Discount rate (% pa) 6.3% 5.9% Pension increases (% pa) 2.3% 2.5% Salary increases are assumed to be 0.5% pa above pension increases, plus an additional promotional salary scale. For further details on the methodology used to derive the assumptions, please see the Fund's FSS. 16 September 2026 Page 7 of 12 A.5 Demographic assumptions Life expectancy (years) Ongoing basis Male Female Pensioners 22.2 24.8 Non-pensioners 22.8 25.8 Life expectancies are from age 65 and are based on the Fund's membership data at 31 March 2025. Non-pensioners are assumed to be aged 45 at that date. All other demographic assumptions are the same as at the most recent valuation at 31 March 2025. 16 September 2026 Page 8 of 12 Appendix B - Technical information B.1 Funding update methodology The last formal valuation of the fund was carried out as at 31 March 2025. The results in this report are based on rolling forward the results of the last formal valuation to 30 June 2026 using approximate methods. The roll-forward allows for: The CARE, deferred and pensioner liabilities at 30 June 2026 include a total adjustment of 1.5% to reflect the difference between actual September CPI inflation values (up to 30 September 2025) and the assumption made at 31 March 2025. The adjustment for each year's actual inflation is applied from 31 October 2025 that year, cumulative with prior years' adjustments, which may lead to step changes in the funding level progression chart. In preparing the updated funding position at 30 June 2026, the membership is assumed to have changed since 31 March 2025 in line with the demographic assumptions described in the Fund's FSS. No allowance has been made for any other changes. The principal reason for this is that insufficient information is available to make any such adjustment. Significant membership movements, or any material difference between estimated inputs and actual experience, may affect the reliability of the results. The Fund should consider whether any such factors mean that the roll forward approach may not be appropriate. No allowance has been made for any early retirements or bulk transfers since 31 March 2025. There is also no allowance for any changes to Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) benefits except where noted in the formal valuation report or Funding Strategy Statement. Where the Fund has moved to a different funding basis since 31 March 2025 this may give rise to step changes in the funding level on the date of the change. estimated cashflows over the period as described in section A.2 investment returns over the period (estimated where necessary) as described in section A.3 changes in financial assumptions as described in section A.4 estimated additional benefit accrual. 16 September 2026 Page 9 of 12 B.2 Sensitivity of results to assumptions The results are particularly sensitive to the real discount rate assumption (the discount rate net of pension increases) and the assumptions made for future longevity. If the real discount rate used to value the accrued liabilities was lower then the value placed on those liabilities would increase. For example, if the real discount rate at 30 June 2026 was 1.0% pa lower then the liabilities on the Ongoing basis at that date would increase by 17.3%. In addition, the results are sensitive to unexpected changes in the rate of future longevity improvements. If life expectancies improve at a faster rate than allowed for in the assumptions then, again, a higher value would be placed on the liabilities. An increase in life expectancy of 1 year would increase the accrued liabilities by around 3-5%. 16 September 2026 Page 10 of 12 Appendix C - Reliances and limitations The report should not be disclosed to any third party except as required by law or regulatory obligation or with our prior written consent. Hymans Robertson LLP accept no liability where the report is used by or disclosed to a third party unless such liability has been expressly accepted in writing. Where permitted, the report may only be released or otherwise disclosed in a complete form which fully discloses the advice and the basis on which it is given. The last formal valuation of the fund was carried out as at 31 March 2025 and this report relies upon the results of that valuation. The reliances and limitations that applied to that valuation apply equally to these results. The results of the valuation have been projected forward using approximate methods. The margin of error in these approximate methods increases as time goes by. The method may not be appropriate if there have been significant data changes since the previous formal valuation (for example redundancy exercises, significant unreduced early retirements, ill health retirements and bulk transfers). The methodology assumes that actual experience since the valuation at 31 March 2025 has been in line with assumptionss. The data used in this exercise is summarised in Appendix A. Data provided for the purposes of the formal valuation at 31 March 2025 was checked at the time for reasonableness and consistency with other sources. Data provided since then (eg actual investment returns) has been used as-is. The data is the responsibility of the Administering Authority and the results rely on the data. The results in this schedule are based on calculations run on 16 September 2026 using the data set out in Appendix A. Any other factors coming to light after this report was prepared have not been allowed for and could affect the results. If any data has materially changed since 16 September 2026 the results could be materially different if they were recalculated. Some financial assumptions may be based on projections from our Economic Scenario Service (ESS) model which is only calibrated at each month-end. Results between month ends use the latest available calibration, adjusted in line with the movement in market conditions. This adjustment is approximate and there may be step changes at month-end dates when a new ESS monthly calibration is factored in. The methodology underlying these calculations mean that the results should be treated as indicative only. The nature of the fund's investments means that the surplus or deficit identified in this report can vary significantly over short periods of time. This means that the results set out should not be taken as being applicable at any date other than the date shown. 16 September 2026 Page 11 of 12 During periods of high market volatility, actual asset returns may differ more significantly from the market index returns we use to estimate them from day to day. This means that estimated asset values will be less reliable in such periods, particularly at dates not coinciding with periods of known returns. If you want to make a decision based on your current funding position, we strongly recommend you get an up to date valuation from your asset manager and speak to your Hymans Robertson LLP consultant. As with all modelling, the results are dependent on the model itself, the calibration of the underlying model and the various approximations and estimations used. These processes involve an element of subjectivity and may be material depending on the context. No inferences should be drawn from these results other than those confirmed separately in writing by a consultant of Hymans Robertson LLP. Decisions should not be based solely on these results and your Hymans Robertson LLP consultant should be contacted to discuss any appropriate action before any is taken. Hymans Robertson LLP accepts no liability if any decisions are based solely on these results or if any action is taken based solely on such results. Data used directly or indirectly in the preparation of these results may have been sourced from third parties, including Bloomberg, Bank of England, FTSE and iBoxx (IHS Markit). This report complies with the relevant Technical Actuarial Standards. Hymans Robertson LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC310282. A list of members of Hymans Robertson LLP is available for inspection at One London Wall, London EC2Y 5EA, the firm's registered office. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and licensed by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries for a range of investment business activities. Hymans Robertson is a registered trademark of Hymans Robertson LLP. 16 September 2026 Page 12 of 12

Local Authority Fund Statistics 2025/26 UNIVERSE OVERVIEW 1 Year 3 Yrs (% p.a.) 5 Yrs (% p.a.) 10 Yrs (% p.a.) 20 Yrs (% p.a.) 30 Yrs (% p.a.) Universe average 9.6 7.4 5.8 7.6 6.6 7.1 Range of Results Top Quartile 11.3 8.7 6.2 7.9 6.9 7.1 Median 9.5 7.8 5.5 7.6 6.4 6.9 Bottom Quartile 7.1 6.5 4.5 6.8 6.1 6.7 Total Equity 14.9 11.6 8.4 10.4 8.1 8.0 Global 12.7 11.2 8.2 10.9 8.5 UK 18.9 11.8 9.3 8.2 6.6 Emerging 27.2 12.2 4.3 8.4 7.0 Total Bonds 4.7 3.5 4.8 2.3 4.1 5.3 UK Bonds 4.3 0.2 -4.3 0.3 Global Bonds 4.1 3.8 0.5 2.4 Absolute Return Bonds 5.6 6.3 3.0 3.4 Multi Asset Credit 5.8 7.5 3.3 3.7 Private Debt 6.0 7.0 6.6 Private Equity 3.8 2.7 9.1 12.3 10.0 Infrastructure 5.0 3.9 7.1 7.8 Other Alternatives 6.0 4.3 4.1 4.1 Property 4.2 1.3 2.4 3.5 3.6 6.7 At the end of March 2026 the Universe was comprised of 61 funds with a combined value of £299 bn. GMPF Designated Fund is included in the Universe but excluded from the League tables. Lambeth and Isle of Wight were unable to supply final data in order to be included. TOTAL FUND PERFORMANCE Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Universe Average 9.6 7.4 5.8 7.6 6.6 7.1 Range of Results Upper Quartile 11.3 8.7 6.2 7.9 6.9 7.1 Median 9.5 7.8 5.5 7.6 6.4 6.9 Lower Quartile 7.1 6.5 4.5 6.8 6.1 6.7 Avon Pension Fund 7.0 77 4.7 97 3.2 98 5.1 98 5.5 95 6.1 100 Barking and Dagenham 11.9 18 9.5 8 6.4 20 8.1 15 6.1 77 6.8 62 Barnet Pension Fund 9.1 57 7.8 50 5.3 57 6.9 70 6.0 82 6.4 93 Berkshire Pension Fund 2.2 100 4.4 98 5.5 52 6.5 90 Bexley Pension Fund 6.0 90 5.5 90 3.4 97 6.4 93 6.5 41 6.9 51 Brent Pension Fund 12.7 10 8.8 17 6.3 23 7.3 62 5.3 98 6.2 96 Bromley Pension Fund 9.9 42 8.4 30 4.3 83 8.9 3 8.3 2 8.0 2 Cambridgeshire Pension Fund 6.6 83 7.0 68 5.6 48 8.1 20 6.5 48 6.8 66 Camden Pension Fund 10.9 32 8.0 40 5.4 55 7.8 30 6.3 63 7.0 47 Cardiff & Glamorgan Pension Fund 12.7 8 9.8 5 6.7 12 7.7 43 6.9 22 7.1 40 City of London Corporation 6.8 78 6.2 77 4.8 70 7.4 57 6.8 29 Cornwall Pension Fund 5.6 92 4.4 100 3.6 93 5.6 97 Cumbria Pension Fund 9.5 47 6.5 75 4.9 63 6.8 77 6.5 45 7.0 42 Devon Pension Fund 9.9 43 8.3 37 6.1 30 7.3 63 6.0 79 6.7 74 Dorset Pension Fund 12.0 17 9.3 10 6.5 17 7.5 52 6.4 54 7.1 36 Dyfed Pension Fund 12.4 12 8.8 18 5.9 35 8.2 13 7.1 9 7.8 4 Ealing Pension Fund 12.3 13 9.6 7 5.8 40 7.2 65 6.4 57 7.2 23 East Riding Pension Fund 11.1 27 8.0 42 6.7 13 7.6 47 6.6 38 7.1 34 East Sussex Pension Fund 6.1 87 5.0 93 4.5 75 6.7 80 6.2 66 7.0 45 Enfield Pension Fund 6.7 80 5.8 83 4.1 90 6.3 95 5.9 86 6.7 72 Flintshire (Clywd) 7.3 73 5.7 85 4.6 72 6.9 72 5.6 91 6.5 87 Gloucestershire Pension Fund 10.0 40 8.5 28 6.0 33 7.8 28 6.6 36 7.1 30 Greater Manchester Pension Fund 10.6 35 7.3 60 6.9 8 8.1 20 6.9 20 7.6 6 Greenwich Pension Fund 12.8 7 8.2 38 5.6 47 6.8 73 5.6 93 6.4 94 Gwynedd Pension Fund 10.9 30 9.0 15 6.9 10 8.6 7 6.9 27 7.2 21 1 Year 3 Yrs (%p.a.) 5Yrs (%p.a.) 10 Yrs (%p.a.) 20 Yrs (% p.a.) 30 Yrs (% p.a.) TOTAL FUND PERFORMANCE Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Universe Average 9.6 7.4 5.8 7.6 6.6 7.1 Range of Results Upper Quartile 11.3 8.7 6.2 7.9 6.9 7.1 Median 9.5 7.8 5.5 7.6 6.4 6.9 Lower Quartile 7.1 6.5 4.5 6.8 6.1 6.7 1 Year 3 Yrs (%p.a.) 5Yrs (%p.a.) 10 Yrs (%p.a.) 20 Yrs (% p.a.) 30 Yrs (% p.a.) Hackney Pension Fund 9.4 52 6.9 70 4.3 85 6.8 75 5.6 89 6.7 79 Hammersmith and Fulham 5.0 93 5.5 87 4.9 68 6.7 88 7.1 14 6.8 68 Haringey Pension Fund 9.5 48 7.7 52 5.7 42 8.0 22 6.7 34 6.9 55 Harrow Pension Fund 7.7 67 7.4 58 4.4 77 6.7 83 5.9 84 6.7 77 Havering Pension Fund 10.1 38 7.0 67 4.3 82 6.8 78 5.8 88 6.5 89 Hillingdon Pension Fund 11.7 22 9.1 13 5.9 37 6.5 92 5.4 97 Hounslow Pension Fund 4.0 97 6.0 80 4.2 87 6.7 87 6.6 39 6.9 60 Islington Pension Fund 9.3 53 8.7 22 6.2 27 7.7 37 6.2 72 6.9 53 Kensington and Chelsea 13.9 3 10.5 2 8.0 2 10.4 1 8.6 1 8.4 1 Kent Pension Fund 11.5 23 6.2 78 4.6 73 7.5 53 6.5 47 7.0 49 Kingston upon Thames 8.9 60 8.7 25 6.1 28 8.4 10 7.3 5 7.1 32 Lancashire Pension Fund 3.9 98 5.1 92 6.2 25 8.0 23 6.9 25 7.1 28 Lewisham Pension Fund 9.5 50 8.3 33 5.8 38 7.7 38 6.1 73 6.9 59 Lincolnshire Pension Fund 9.8 45 7.9 45 6.6 15 7.9 25 6.3 59 6.9 57 London Pension Fund Authority 4.2 95 4.9 95 6.1 32 7.7 43 6.1 75 Merseyside Pension Fund 13.5 5 7.4 57 5.7 45 7.1 68 6.4 50 7.1 27 Merton Pension Fund 11.3 25 8.0 43 4.3 80 7.6 50 6.7 32 7.1 38 Newham Pension Fund 7.6 70 7.5 55 6.4 18 7.2 67 6.4 52 6.7 83 Northamptonshire Pension Fund 7.1 75 7.2 65 5.0 62 7.6 45 6.2 64 6.8 64 Oxfordshire Pension Fund 8.4 63 7.3 62 5.5 50 7.6 48 6.3 61 6.7 76 Powys Pension Fund 6.3 85 5.9 82 4.2 88 6.7 85 6.0 80 6.5 91 Redbridge Pension Fund 11.0 28 8.3 32 4.4 78 6.7 82 6.2 70 6.6 85 Rhondda Cynon Taf Pension Fund 10.7 33 7.8 48 3.5 95 8.1 17 7.3 7 7.3 17 South Yorkshire Pension Authority 10.2 37 6.8 73 5.3 58 7.5 55 6.9 23 7.5 11 Southwark Pension Fund 8.1 65 6.8 72 5.2 60 7.8 35 6.8 30 7.3 15 TOTAL FUND PERFORMANCE Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Universe Average 9.6 7.4 5.8 7.6 6.6 7.1 Range of Results Upper Quartile 11.3 8.7 6.2 7.9 6.9 7.1 Median 9.5 7.8 5.5 7.6 6.4 6.9 Lower Quartile 7.1 6.5 4.5 6.8 6.1 6.7 1 Year 3 Yrs (%p.a.) 5Yrs (%p.a.) 10 Yrs (%p.a.) 20 Yrs (% p.a.) 30 Yrs (% p.a.) Strathclyde Pension Fund 9.2 55 7.5 53 5.7 43 8.2 12 7.0 16 7.5 10 Suffolk Pension Fund 7.7 68 8.6 27 7.0 7 7.8 33 6.5 43 7.0 43 Surrey Pension Fund 12.0 15 9.2 12 6.4 22 7.4 58 6.4 55 6.7 81 Sutton Pension Fund 9.1 58 8.7 25 5.5 53 7.9 27 Swansea Pension Fund 11.7 20 10.1 3 8.0 1 9.5 2 7.6 4 7.5 13 Torfaen ( Gwent )Pension Fund 14.1 2 10.6 1 7.3 5 8.7 5 7.1 11 7.2 25 Tower Hamlets Pension Fund 8.6 62 7.3 63 4.0 92 7.7 40 6.2 68 6.8 70 Waltham Forest Pension Fund 7.6 72 5.5 88 2.8 100 4.8 100 5.2 100 6.1 98 Wandsworth & Richmond Fund 6.1 88 7.9 47 4.9 65 7.3 60 6.9 18 7.2 19 West Yorkshire Pension Fund 14.1 1 8.8 20 7.4 3 8.4 8 7.1 13 7.6 8 Westminster Pension Fund 6.6 82 8.2 35 4.9 67 7.8 32 PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO BENCHMARK 1 yr 3yrs 5yrs 1 yr 3yrs 5yrs 1 yr 3yrs 5yrs Top Quartile 11.3 8.7 6.2 13.1 10.5 7.9 -0.9 -1.3 -1.1 Median 9.5 7.8 5.5 12.1 9.8 7.2 -2.9 -2.1 -1.8 Bottom Quartile 7.1 6.5 4.5 11.2 9.2 6.7 -4.9 -3.0 -2.4 Avon Pension Fund 7.0 4.7 3.2 10.5 8.3 7.3 -3.5 -3.6 -4.1 Barking and Dagenham 11.9 9.5 6.4 12.0 10.8 6.3 -0.1 -1.3 0.1 Barnet Pension Fund 9.1 7.8 5.3 8.8 9.4 6.7 0.3 -1.6 -1.4 Berkshire Pension Fund 2.2 4.4 5.5 13.5 10.7 8.1 -11.3 -6.3 -2.6 Bexley Pension Fund 6.0 5.5 3.4 10.1 7.7 5.3 -4.1 -2.2 -1.9 Brent Pension Fund 12.7 8.8 6.3 12.5 9.9 6.8 0.2 -1.1 -0.5 Bromley Pension Fund 9.9 8.4 4.3 11.7 9.9 7.0 -1.8 -1.5 -2.7 Cambridgeshire 6.6 7.0 5.6 12.6 10.8 8.0 -6.0 -3.8 -2.4 Camden Pension Fund 10.9 8.0 5.4 15.4 12.4 10.3 -4.5 -4.4 -4.9 Cardiff & Glamorgan Pension Fund 12.7 9.8 6.7 14.7 11.1 8.8 -2.0 -1.3 -2.1 City of London Corporation 6.8 6.2 4.8 13.1 10.8 9.6 -6.4 -4.5 -4.9 Cornwall Pension Fund 5.6 4.4 3.6 11.5 9.7 7.4 -5.9 -5.3 -3.8 Cumbria Pension Fund 9.5 6.5 4.9 10.3 7.1 5.3 -0.8 -0.6 -0.3 Devon Pension Fund 9.9 8.3 6.11 13.0 10.4 8.1 -3.1 -2.1 -2.0 Dorset Pension Fund 12.0 9.3 6.5 15.0 11.6 8.5 -3.0 -2.3 -2.0 Dyfed Pension Fund 12.4 8.8 5.9 13.6 10.1 7.0 -1.3 -1.3 -1.1 Ealing Pension Fund 12.3 9.6 5.8 12.0 10.0 7.2 0.3 -0.4 -1.4 East Riding Pension Fund 11.1 8 6.7 14.0 9.6 8.9 -2.9 -1.6 -2.2 East Sussex Pension Fund 6.1 5.0 4.5 11.0 9.5 7.5 -5.0 -4.6 -3.0 Enfield Pension Fund 6.7 5.8 4.1 11.7 8.3 6.0 -5.0 -2.5 -1.9 Flintshire (Clywd) 7.3 5.7 4.6 10.7 9.3 6.2 -3.4 -3.6 -1.6 Gloucestershire Pension Fund 10.0 8.5 6.0 12.9 10.1 7.1 -2.9 -1.6 -1.1 Greater Manchester Pension Fund 10.6 7.3 6.9 12.1 9.2 7.4 -1.5 -1.9 -0.5 Greenwich Pension Fund 12.8 8.2 5.6 11.3 8.6 6.4 1.5 -0.4 -0.8 Gwynedd Pension Fund 10.9 9.0 6.9 11.5 9.8 8.0 -0.6 -0.8 -1.1 Hackney Pension Fund 9.4 6.9 4.3 9.5 8.0 5.7 -0.1 -1.1 -1.5 Fund Return %pa Benchmark Return %pa Relative Return %pa PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO BENCHMARK 1 yr 3yrs 5yrs 1 yr 3yrs 5yrs 1 yr 3yrs 5yrs Top Quartile 11.3 8.7 6.2 13.1 10.5 7.9 -0.9 -1.3 -1.1 Median 9.5 7.8 5.5 12.1 9.8 7.2 -2.9 -2.1 -1.8 Bottom Quartile 7.1 6.5 4.5 11.2 9.2 6.7 -4.9 -3.0 -2.4 Fund Return %pa Benchmark Return %pa Relative Return %pa Hammersmith and Fulham 5.0 5.5 4.9 10.4 8.7 6.3 -5.4 -3.2 -1.5 Haringey Pension Fund 9.5 7.7 5.7 10.4 9.4 6.8 -0.9 -1.7 -1.1 Harrow Pension Fund 7.7 7.4 4.4 16.8 11.8 7.2 -9.1 -4.4 -2.8 Havering Pension Fund 10.1 7.0 4.3 11.6 9.7 7.5 -1.5 -2.7 -3.2 Hillingdon Pension Fund 11.7 9.1 5.9 12.7 10.0 7.0 -1.0 -0.9 -1.1 Hounslow Pension Fund 4.0 6.0 4.2 12.2 8.7 6.6 -8.2 -2.7 -2.3 Islington Pension Fund 9.3 8.7 6.2 11.8 10.2 7.1 -2.5 -1.4 -0.9 Kensington and Chelsea 13.9 10.5 8.0 14.8 12.3 10.1 -0.9 -1.8 -2.1 Kent Pension Fund 11.5 6.2 4.6 10.8 8.4 6.9 0.7 -2.1 -2.4 Kingston upon Thames 8.9 8.7 6.1 9.9 9.0 7.6 -1.0 -0.3 -1.5 Lancashire Pension Fund 3.9 5.1 6.2 11.3 9.7 7.7 -7.4 -4.6 -1.4 Lewisham Pension Fund 9.5 8.3 5.8 10.4 9.1 5.7 -0.9 -0.8 0.1 Lincolnshire Pension Fund 9.8 7.9 6.6 13.0 10.1 7.7 -3.2 -2.3 -1.0 London Pension Fund Authority 4.2 4.9 6.1 12.4 10.2 7.9 -8.2 -5.3 -1.8 Merseyside Pension Fund 13.5 7.4 5.7 13.6 8.8 5.4 -0.1 -1.4 0.3 Merton Pension Fund 11.3 8.0 4.3 11.1 9.8 7.0 0.2 -1.8 -2.7 Newham Pension Fund 7.6 7.5 6.4 11.4 9.5 7.4 -3.7 -2.0 -1.0 Northamptonshire Pension Fund 7.1 7.2 5.0 12.1 9.7 7.0 -5.0 -2.5 -2.0 Oxfordshire Pension Fund 8.4 7.3 5.5 13.3 10.1 7.9 -4.9 -2.8 -2.4 Powys Pension Fund 6.3 5.9 4.2 14.3 10.5 6.9 -8.0 -4.6 -2.7 Redbridge Pension Fund 11.0 8.3 4.4 11.5 8.5 5.5 -0.6 -0.2 -1.2 Rhondda Cynon Taf Pension Fund 10.7 7.8 3.5 12.5 10.0 6.6 -1.8 -2.2 -3.1 South Yorkshire Pension Authority 10.2 6.8 5.3 12.8 8.3 5.6 -2.6 -1.5 -0.3 Southwark Pension Fund 8.1 6.8 5.2 11.0 9.7 7.6 -2.9 -2.9 -2.3 Strathclyde Pension Fund 9.2 7.5 5.7 11.8 9.8 7.3 -2.6 -2.3 -1.6 Suffolk Pension Fund 7.7 8.6 7.0 12.5 10.3 8.1 -4.8 -1.7 -1.2 PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO BENCHMARK 1 yr 3yrs 5yrs 1 yr 3yrs 5yrs 1 yr 3yrs 5yrs Top Quartile 11.3 8.7 6.2 13.1 10.5 7.9 -0.9 -1.3 -1.1 Median 9.5 7.8 5.5 12.1 9.8 7.2 -2.9 -2.1 -1.8 Bottom Quartile 7.1 6.5 4.5 11.2 9.2 6.7 -4.9 -3.0 -2.4 Fund Return %pa Benchmark Return %pa Relative Return %pa Surrey Pension Fund 12.0 9.2 6.4 15.6 12.2 8.7 -3.6 -3.0 -2.3 Sutton Pension Fund 9.1 8.9 5.5 11.2 8.2 6.2 -2.1 0.7 -0.7 Swansea Pension Fund 11.7 10.1 8.0 13.0 11.7 7.7 -1.3 -1.6 0.3 Torfaen ( Gwent )Pension Fund 14.1 10.6 7.3 14.5 11.0 7.7 -0.4 -0.4 -0.3 Tower Hamlets Pension Fund 8.6 7.3 4.0 11.6 10.2 7.6 -3.0 -2.9 -3.6 Waltham Forest Pension Fund 7.6 5.5 2.8 13.2 11.4 8.9 -5.6 -5.9 -6.1 Wandsworth & Richmond Fund 6.1 7.9 4.9 12.7 11.0 8.2 -6.6 -3.1 -3.3 West Yorkshire Pension Fund 14.1 8.8 7.4 14.4 9.3 6.9 -0.3 -0.5 0.5 Westminster Pension Fund 6.6 8.3 4.9 11.2 10.6 7.2 -4.6 -2.3 -2.3 EQUITY PERFORMANCE Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Universe Average 14.9 11.6 8.4 10.4 8.1 8.0 Range of Results Upper Quartile 16.5 12.9 9.5 11.2 8.4 8.4 Median 15.1 11.6 8.0 10.3 8.0 8.0 Lower Quartile 11.2 10.3 6.5 9.8 7.7 7.7 Avon Pension Fund 9.8 82 9.3 83 7.2 68 9.7 77 7.8 71 7.6 81 Barking and Dagenham 16.9 20 12.7 32 7.7 58 11.6 11 8.2 37 8.4 19 Barnet Pension Fund 19.8 8 15.7 1 10.2 5 11.6 9 9.3 6 8.6 6 Berkshire Pension Fund 1.8 98 6.3 97 6.5 75 Bexley Pension Fund 9.9 80 10.9 60 7.5 62 10.2 53 8.6 16 8.5 8 Brent Pension Fund 18.9 12 14.2 7 10.8 2 11.6 7 7.8 69 7.5 88 Bromley Pension Fund 13.1 62 10.4 72 6.1 85 11.9 4 10.2 1 9.4 1 Cambridgeshire Pension Fund 8.8 87 10.5 67 7.7 57 10.2 56 7.5 82 7.6 79 Camden Pension Fund 16.5 25 12.9 23 8.4 40 10.8 39 7.9 65 8.2 31 Cardiff & Glamorgan Pension Fund 17.4 15 13.2 20 9.4 27 9.8 76 8.1 47 7.9 52 City of London Corporation 8.8 85 8.0 93 5.8 92 9.3 93 8.1 41 Cornwall Pension Fund 12.2 68 8.7 88 5.6 95 9.3 90 Cumbria Pension Fund 15.4 43 11.6 48 9.6 22 11.1 28 8.7 12 8.5 13 Devon Pension Fund 14.2 55 10.8 63 7.9 52 9.4 88 7.1 90 7.5 90 Dorset Pension Fund 15.4 45 11.5 53 8.1 47 10.0 67 Dyfed Pension Fund 16.5 27 11.3 57 7.7 55 10.0 69 7.7 77 8.1 40 Ealing Pension Fund 16.5 28 12.4 37 8.4 38 10.1 65 7.8 67 8.3 27 East Riding Pension Fund 20.4 5 12.7 33 10.0 10 10.1 62 8.2 39 8.1 42 East Sussex Pension Fund 4.5 93 6.8 95 5.6 93 8.9 98 7.0 94 7.4 98 Enfield Pension Fund 9.0 83 9.2 85 6.8 70 11.0 30 8.4 24 8.5 17 Flintshire (Clywd) 13.2 60 8.2 92 4.8 100 9.2 95 6.8 100 7.1 100 Gloucestershire Pension Fund 13.6 58 10.3 75 7.4 63 9.8 72 7.6 79 7.9 58 Greater Manchester Pension Fund 20.4 7 13.7 15 11.1 1 11.2 19 8.3 30 8.5 15 Greenwich Pension Fund 22.3 2 13.9 12 9.6 20 10.7 44 7.4 84 7.5 86 Gwynedd Pension Fund 16.5 30 12.2 43 9.1 32 10.6 46 8.0 51 7.9 54 1 Year 3 Yrs (%p.a.) 5Yrs (%p.a.) 10 Yrs (%p.a.) 20 Yrs (% p.a.) 30 Yrs (% p.a.) EQUITY PERFORMANCE Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Universe Average 14.9 11.6 8.4 10.4 8.1 8.0 Range of Results Upper Quartile 16.5 12.9 9.5 11.2 8.4 8.4 Median 15.1 11.6 8.0 10.3 8.0 8.0 Lower Quartile 11.2 10.3 6.5 9.8 7.7 7.7 1 Year 3 Yrs (%p.a.) 5Yrs (%p.a.) 10 Yrs (%p.a.) 20 Yrs (% p.a.) 30 Yrs (% p.a.) Hackney Pension Fund 14.6 53 15.3 2 9.0 33 10.8 37 8.1 45 8.2 33 Hammersmith and Fulham 7.1 90 11.4 55 9.3 28 10.8 40 10.0 2 9.0 2 Haringey Pension Fund 15.6 40 14.7 3 10.2 7 11.8 5 8.3 31 8.1 44 Harrow Pension Fund 11.0 77 9.9 80 7.4 67 9.9 70 7.4 86 7.6 77 Havering Pension Fund 16.2 35 11.6 50 6.2 82 11.5 12 6.9 96 7.4 96 Hillingdon Pension Fund 17.3 17 14.3 5 9.6 18 9.1 97 6.8 98 Hounslow Pension Fund 4.2 95 9.0 87 7.6 60 9.5 84 7.9 63 7.9 56 Islington Pension Fund 12.0 70 11.1 58 8.3 45 10.1 60 7.1 92 7.4 94 Kensington and Chelsea 15.1 50 12.9 27 8.7 35 12.0 2 Kent Pension Fund 16.7 22 10.3 73 5.8 90 9.3 91 7.7 73 7.4 92 Kingston upon Thames 15.3 47 14.1 8 10.0 12 12.4 1 9.4 4 8.6 4 Lancashire Pension Fund 1.8 100 6.2 100 6.5 77 9.6 79 8.0 49 7.8 65 Lewisham Pension Fund 14.9 52 14.0 10 9.5 23 11.2 21 7.9 61 7.9 61 Lincolnshire Pension Fund 15.2 48 10.9 62 9.1 30 10.8 35 8.0 57 7.9 63 London Pension Fund Authority 1.9 97 6.2 98 6.6 73 Merseyside Pension Fund 24.0 1 13.4 17 9.5 25 10.2 58 9.0 10 7.7 71 Merton Pension Fund 16.5 23 10.5 68 5.9 88 9.8 74 7.7 75 7.8 69 Newham Pension Fund 11.2 75 11.5 52 8.3 43 10.1 63 8.5 18 8.1 38 Northamptonshire Pension Fund 10.1 78 12.4 38 8.5 37 11.4 14 8.3 33 8.4 25 Oxfordshire Pension Fund 12.0 72 10.1 78 7.8 53 9.7 81 7.2 88 Powys Pension Fund 15.4 42 10.2 77 6.3 78 10.2 56 8.0 53 7.5 83 Redbridge Pension Fund 17.0 18 12.8 28 8.0 50 11.2 25 7.9 59 7.8 67 Rhondda Cynon Taf Pension Fund 14.1 57 10.4 70 5.5 97 10.9 33 9.0 8 8.5 11 South Yorkshire Pension Authority 20.7 3 12.9 25 9.7 17 10.9 32 8.4 28 8.4 21 Southwark Pension Fund 16.1 37 12.6 35 8.1 48 10.5 47 8.4 22 8.0 50 Strathclyde Pension Fund 15.8 38 11.8 47 7.4 65 10.7 42 8.5 20 8.4 23 Suffolk Pension Fund 12.4 67 13.0 22 10.3 3 11.1 26 8.4 26 8.1 46 EQUITY PERFORMANCE Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Universe Average 14.9 11.6 8.4 10.4 8.1 8.0 Range of Results Upper Quartile 16.5 12.9 9.5 11.2 8.4 8.4 Median 15.1 11.6 8.0 10.3 8.0 8.0 Lower Quartile 11.2 10.3 6.5 9.8 7.7 7.7 1 Year 3 Yrs (%p.a.) 5Yrs (%p.a.) 10 Yrs (%p.a.) 20 Yrs (% p.a.) 30 Yrs (% p.a.) Surrey Pension Fund 16.3 33 12.3 40 8.3 42 9.6 83 8.1 43 7.7 73 Sutton Pension Fund 12.5 65 12.2 42 6.7 72 10.2 51 Swansea Pension Fund 16.5 32 13.8 13 9.8 15 11.4 16 8.7 14 8.2 29 Torfaen ( Gwent )Pension Fund 18.4 13 13.4 18 9.8 13 11.3 18 Tower Hamlets Pension Fund 12.5 63 12.1 45 6.2 83 11.2 23 8.2 35 8.0 50 Waltham Forest Pension Fund 11.6 73 9.5 82 5.3 98 7.7 100 7.6 80 7.7 75 Wandsworth & Richmond Fund 6.1 92 8.3 90 5.9 87 West Yorkshire Pension Fund 19.4 10 12.7 30 10.0 8 10.3 49 8.0 55 8.2 36 Westminster Pension Fund 8.4 88 10.7 65 6.3 80 9.4 86 BOND PERFORMANCE Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Universe Average 4.7 3.5 -0.3 2.3 4.1 5.3 Range of Results Upper Quartile 5.3 6.2 1.6 2.8 4.4 5.5 Median 4.7 3.8 0.1 2.3 4.0 5.1 Lower Quartile 4.3 2.5 -1.8 1.2 3.4 4.6 Avon Pension Fund 6.2 7 7.2 9 1.5 30 3.1 18 5.2 5 Barking and Dagenham 5.2 28 6.8 15 2.4 12 2.3 50 3.4 82 4.8 68 Barnet Pension Fund 4.6 58 5.1 36 2.3 16 3.6 6 5.3 2 5.8 13 Berkshire Pension Fund 3.5 87 4.4 39 1.6 25 Bexley Pension Fund 4.4 72 1.7 80 -2.7 84 0.4 90 2.7 91 4.4 90 Brent Pension Fund 2.6 98 0.8 87 -5.0 95 -0.9 100 1.5 100 4.0 95 Bromley Pension Fund 7.8 1 5.5 32 0.8 46 2.3 46 4.1 43 5.0 53 Cambridgeshire Pension Fund 4.7 55 2.8 68 -0.7 62 2.1 58 3.4 77 4.4 88 Camden Pension Fund 5.3 23 4.4 42 0.2 47 1.2 76 3.2 84 4.5 80 Cardiff & Glamorgan Pension Fund 4.4 73 4.9 37 1.6 26 2.9 20 4.6 21 5.5 28 City of London Corporation 4.6 62 7.0 14 3.5 2 Cornwall Pension Fund 5.6 17 7.7 5 3.6 1 2.4 42 Cumbria Pension Fund 4.8 48 -0.4 93 -3.8 88 0.1 92 Devon Pension Fund 6.2 8 7.9 2 2.9 9 3.8 4 4.1 39 5.3 40 Dorset Pension Fund 5.8 13 7.7 3 Dyfed Pension Fund 4.3 77 4.1 46 -0.6 60 Ealing Pension Fund 5.8 12 6.4 20 0.8 44 3.3 14 4.5 23 5.7 15 East Riding Pension Fund 4.7 53 2.6 73 -1.9 77 2.1 60 3.6 68 4.8 70 East Sussex Pension Fund 4.0 78 -0.3 92 -4.8 93 0.7 88 3.6 66 4.9 60 Enfield Pension Fund 3.0 95 3.3 59 -0.8 63 1.8 62 4.2 36 5.3 43 Flintshire (Clywd) 7.4 2 8.2 1 2.9 11 2.6 30 4.0 50 5.5 20 Gloucestershire Pension Fund 5.8 15 7.2 10 1.9 19 3.5 8 4.8 9 6.0 3 Greater Manchester Pension Fund 3.4 90 2.9 65 0.1 54 2.4 44 4.4 25 5.5 33 Greenwich Pension Fund 4.0 80 4.1 44 -0.1 56 2.1 56 4.3 32 5.4 38 Gwynedd Pension Fund 4.4 70 6.0 29 3.3 4 2.5 36 3.2 89 4.5 78 30 Yrs (% p.a.)1 Year 3 Yrs (%p.a.) 5Yrs (%p.a.) 10 Yrs (%p.a.) 20 Yrs (% p.a.) BOND PERFORMANCE Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Universe Average 4.7 3.5 -0.3 2.3 4.1 5.3 Range of Results Upper Quartile 5.3 6.2 1.6 2.8 4.4 5.5 Median 4.7 3.8 0.1 2.3 4.0 5.1 Lower Quartile 4.3 2.5 -1.8 1.2 3.4 4.6 30 Yrs (% p.a.)1 Year 3 Yrs (%p.a.) 5Yrs (%p.a.) 10 Yrs (%p.a.) 20 Yrs (% p.a.) Hackney Pension Fund 3.3 92 2.4 76 -1.4 72 1.7 66 4.0 46 Hammersmith and Fulham 1.2 100 -1.2 95 -2.3 83 0.9 84 3.4 73 4.6 75 Haringey Pension Fund 5.2 30 2.2 78 -1.7 74 1.0 82 4.1 41 5.2 48 Harrow Pension Fund 5.2 32 1.4 83 -3.6 86 1.2 74 4.4 27 5.5 20 Havering Pension Fund 5.5 18 3.5 58 -1.4 70 2.8 24 5.3 1 6.0 1 Hillingdon Pension Fund 5.2 33 3.0 63 -1.3 69 2.3 48 3.8 57 Hounslow Pension Fund 4.4 68 -1.3 97 -4.3 90 Islington Pension Fund 4.3 75 5.6 31 1.4 33 3.3 12 4.4 30 5.8 8 Kensington and Chelsea 6.8 3 Kent Pension Fund 4.8 47 5.3 34 2.3 14 3.2 16 3.9 52 5.5 23 Kingston upon Thames 5.3 25 6.2 27 1.4 32 2.9 22 4.7 14 5.2 45 Lancashire Pension Fund 3.5 88 3.7 53 1.8 21 4.3 1 4.7 16 5.5 35 Lewisham Pension Fund 2.9 97 -1.4 98 -6.4 98 -0.7 96 3.5 71 5.0 55 Lincolnshire Pension Fund 6.0 10 6.2 26 0.9 42 2.2 54 3.4 80 4.5 83 London Pension Fund Authority 3.5 85 3.8 51 1.6 23 Merseyside Pension Fund 3.7 82 -1.6 100 -6.5 100 -0.8 98 2.3 96 3.2 100 Merton Pension Fund 5.4 20 6.3 22 -1.0 65 2.5 32 4.8 11 5.5 25 Newham Pension Fund 4.6 57 3.2 61 Northamptonshire Pension Fund 4.6 60 1.5 81 -2.2 81 1.1 78 3.4 75 4.6 73 Oxfordshire Pension Fund 5.1 37 2.5 75 -2.0 79 1.5 70 4.0 48 5.1 50 Powys Pension Fund 4.7 53 3.6 56 0.1 53 2.4 42 Redbridge Pension Fund 4.7 50 0.0 90 -5.3 97 -0.4 94 3.2 86 4.4 85 Rhondda Cynon Taf Pension Fund 3.5 83 2.9 66 -1.8 76 1.1 80 3.8 59 5.0 58 South Yorkshire Pension Authority 4.9 43 0.2 88 -4.6 91 0.8 86 3.9 55 Southwark Pension Fund 4.4 67 2.6 71 1.2 39 93 Strathclyde Pension Fund 4.9 45 3.9 49 1.0 40 2.5 34 3.7 61 4.9 65 Suffolk Pension Fund 4.5 65 6.7 17 3.0 7 4.2 2 5.0 7 5.9 5 BOND PERFORMANCE Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Universe Average 4.7 3.5 -0.3 2.3 4.1 5.3 Range of Results Upper Quartile 5.3 6.2 1.6 2.8 4.4 5.5 Median 4.7 3.8 0.1 2.3 4.0 5.1 Lower Quartile 4.3 2.5 -1.8 1.2 3.4 4.6 30 Yrs (% p.a.)1 Year 3 Yrs (%p.a.) 5Yrs (%p.a.) 10 Yrs (%p.a.) 20 Yrs (% p.a.) Surrey Pension Fund 6.7 5 7.6 7 3.2 5 3.4 10 4.6 18 5.5 30 Sutton Pension Fund 5.2 35 3.7 54 0.1 51 2.8 26 Swansea Pension Fund 3.2 93 4.4 41 1.2 37 2.2 52 3.6 64 4.9 63 Torfaen ( Gwent )Pension Fund 4.5 63 4.0 48 0.2 49 2.5 38 Tower Hamlets Pension Fund 4.9 42 2.7 70 -0.3 58 1.3 72 2.6 93 4.2 93 Waltham Forest Pension Fund 5.4 22 6.6 19 1.6 28 1.8 64 1.6 98 3.3 98 Wandsworth & Richmond Fund 4.9 40 7.0 12 2.3 18 West Yorkshire Pension Fund 5.0 38 1.3 85 -1.2 67 1.6 68 4.3 34 5.8 10 Westminster Pension Fund 5.3 27 6.3 24 1.3 35 2.7 28 PROPERTY PERFORMANCE Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Universe Average 4.2 1.3 2.4 3.5 3.6 6.7 Range of Results Upper Quartile 4.3 2.5 3.0 3.6 4.2 6.9 Median 3.1 1.1 1.9 3.1 3.3 6.3 Lower Quartile 1.6 -0.4 0.6 2.2 2.5 5.5 Avon Pension Fund 2.7 58 -0.8 83 0.0 86 2.4 72 5.9 10 6.113 58 Barking and Dagenham 4.3 28 0.6 64 0.5 79 1.9 90 0.9 98 4.9 92 Barnet Pension Fund 2.5 63 0.9 58 1.0 68 3.454 47 4.208 96 Berkshire Pension Fund 1.6 77 -2.1 94 0.6 78 Bexley Pension Fund 3.6 44 2.1 28 1.3 67 2.5 70 7.1 6 9.0 4 Brent Pension Fund 0.4 84 1.0 56 Bromley Pension Fund 1.7 74 7.7 1 6.0 1 Cambridgeshire Pension Fund 2.4 66 2.0 31 2.3 38 3.3 44 3.0 66 5.5 73 Camden Pension Fund 1.7 70 -3.1 97 -0.5 89 2.0 84 2.7 72 6.4 48 Cardiff & Glamorgan Pension Fund 2.8 55 0.3 70 2.1 43 3.8 19 4.0 36 5.5 79 City of London Corporation 5.9 11 3.6 8 0.8 73 Cornwall Pension Fund 3.6 45 1.7 38 2.3 40 3.5 33 7.3 1 Cumbria Pension Fund 5.2 14 3.3 11 1.8 54 3.4 39 4.5 19 8.0 6 Devon Pension Fund 4.3 25 2.4 27 3.2 19 4.3 9 4.0 32 6.7 36 Dorset Pension Fund 6.0 9 3.5 9 3.0 25 3.6 25 4.1 28 Dyfed Pension Fund 2.4 64 0.9 59 1.9 46 3.5 30 5.2 15 Ealing Pension Fund 2.7 59 -0.4 77 -1.3 94 1.3 97 7.2 4 East Riding Pension Fund -0.9 88 -0.7 80 1.3 65 3.3 42 3.3 53 5.9 East Sussex Pension Fund 1.4 83 2.0 34 2.5 33 3.2 49 3.2 62 6.7 29 Enfield Pension Fund 4.4 24 2.1 30 1.9 49 3.0 62 1.4 96 5.3 88 Flintshire (Clywd) -14.1 99 -11.1 99 -5.7 99 -0.4 98 1.6 94 5.4 86 Gloucestershire Pension Fund 3.0 53 0.4 67 1.8 57 3.3 40 4.2 23 6.9 25 Greater Manchester Pension Fund 7.6 6 2.0 36 3.5 13 3.0 58 3.5 45 6.5 42 Greenwich Pension Fund 4.9 16 3.2 13 2.9 27 3.1 54 1.8 93 5.4 81 Gwynedd Pension Fund 3.8 39 1.6 42 1.3 64 2.6 69 3.3 55 6.9 17 1 Year 3 Yrs (%p.a.) 5Yrs (%p.a.) 10 Yrs (%p.a.) 20 Yrs (% p.a.) 30 Yrs (% p.a.) PROPERTY PERFORMANCE Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Universe Average 4.2 1.3 2.4 3.5 3.6 6.7 Range of Results Upper Quartile 4.3 2.5 3.0 3.6 4.2 6.9 Median 3.1 1.1 1.9 3.1 3.3 6.3 Lower Quartile 1.6 -0.4 0.6 2.2 2.5 5.5 1 Year 3 Yrs (%p.a.) 5Yrs (%p.a.) 10 Yrs (%p.a.) 20 Yrs (% p.a.) 30 Yrs (% p.a.) Hackney Pension Fund 4.4 22 0.2 72 0.5 81 2.1 83 4.0 34 6.8 27 Hammersmith and Fulham 2.7 61 -1.4 91 -1.9 97 2.4 74 Haringey Pension Fund 4.2 31 1.3 47 1.3 62 2.2 76 2.6 74 5.5 71 Havering Pension Fund 3.5 47 0.6 66 2.8 29 3.9 18 2.2 85 4.8 94 Hillingdon Pension Fund -1.4 91 1.6 41 1.8 56 3.0 56 3.2 59 6.7 31 Hounslow Pension Fund 3.8 36 2.9 16 3.1 21 3.0 60 5.2 11 6.5 44 Islington Pension Fund -1.0 89 -0.6 78 0.4 83 2.8 67 4.4 21 Kensington and Chelsea 5.7 13 3.6 6 1.0 70 1.5 93 Kent Pension Fund 4.2 30 2.6 22 3.0 24 4.7 1 6.1 8 9.1 1 Kingston upon Thames 1.4 81 0.8 61 1.9 52 2.9 63 2.4 79 5.1 90 Lancashire Pension Fund 8.1 3 1.3 44 3.8 6 4.5 4 4.1 30 7.6 8 Lewisham Pension Fund 1.7 72 2.5 25 2.8 30 3.5 32 2.8 70 6.1 61 Lincolnshire Pension Fund 3.7 41 1.3 49 1.9 48 2.9 65 2.3 81 5.4 83 London Pension Fund Authority 7.9 5 0.3 69 3.3 16 Merseyside Pension Fund 4.4 20 0.7 63 4.0 5 4.0 12 4.2 27 6.9 19 Merton Pension Fund 3.7 42 2.7 20 4.3 3 4.4 5 2.5 76 6.6 38 Newham Pension Fund 3.1 52 1.1 52 3.5 10 3.9 16 2.8 68 5.5 75 Northamptonshire Pension Fund 4.6 19 1.1 53 1.5 60 2.2 79 2.2 89 6.5 46 Oxfordshire Pension Fund 3.2 49 0.1 74 2.1 45 3.1 53 2.3 83 5.7 69 Powys Pension Fund -7.2 97 -2.6 95 -0.6 91 2.0 88 2.0 91 3.3 100 Redbridge Pension Fund -5.3 95 -2.0 92 -1.0 92 2.2 81 3.2 60 6.6 40 Rhondda Cynon Taf Pension Fund 8.2 1 4.7 3 3.6 8 4.4 7 5.0 17 6.9 21 South Yorkshire Pension Authority 6.7 8 4.5 5 3.4 14 3.6 26 5.2 13 7.4 11 Southwark Pension Fund -0.7 86 -1.3 89 0.8 72 3.3 46 3.4 49 7.2 13 Strathclyde Pension Fund 4.7 17 1.7 39 3.5 11 4.2 11 4.0 38 7.1 15 Suffolk Pension Fund 3.8 38 2.9 19 2.6 32 3.5 28 3.2 57 6.0 65 Surrey Pension Fund 2.7 56 1.0 55 2.2 41 3.2 47 2.2 87 6.3 52 PROPERTY PERFORMANCE Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Universe Average 4.2 1.3 2.4 3.5 3.6 6.7 Range of Results Upper Quartile 4.3 2.5 3.0 3.6 4.2 6.9 Median 3.1 1.1 1.9 3.1 3.3 6.3 Lower Quartile 1.6 -0.4 0.6 2.2 2.5 5.5 1 Year 3 Yrs (%p.a.) 5Yrs (%p.a.) 10 Yrs (%p.a.) 20 Yrs (% p.a.) 30 Yrs (% p.a.) Sutton Pension Fund -1.5 92 -1.0 84 0.2 84 1.4 95 Swansea Pension Fund 1.5 80 -0.8 81 0.7 75 1.6 91 Torfaen ( Gwent )Pension Fund 3.9 34 2.9 17 2.3 37 3.7 21 Tower Hamlets Pension Fund 1.6 78 3.1 14 3.2 18 4.0 14 3.6 43 6.3 56 Wandsworth & Richmond Fund -1.9 94 -1.2 88 -0.1 87 West Yorkshire Pension Fund 2.1 67 2.0 34 1.6 59 3.4 37 3.1 64 6.1 63 Westminster Pension Fund 1.8 69 -1.1 86 -1.7 95 2.0 86 3.6 43 6.3 56 PRIVATE EQUITY PERFORMANCE Rank Rank Rank Rank Universe Average 3.8 2.7 9.1 12.3 Range of Results Upper Quartile 8.8 5.0 11.5 13.6 Median 4.9 2.2 9.9 11.5 Lower Quartile 0.8 1.6 6.3 9.9 Barking and Dagenham 11.9 3 10.1 1 10.3 41 Barnet Pension Fund 0.0 83 -0.1 88 15.0 3 Berkshire Pension Fund -2.3 93 -0.3 90 6.3 74 Bexley Pension Fund -1.8 90 0.1 85 4.5 87 9.9 73 Camden Pension Fund 3.4 65 2.1 58 13.1 10 Cambridgeshire Pension Fund 0.8 73 2.2 55 6.8 69 8.2 83 Cardiff & Glamorgan Pension Fund 4.4 58 1.5 78 7.7 67 11.4 57 Cornwall Pension Fund 8.8 25 6.7 13 10.4 33 11.5 53 Cumbria Pension Fund 6.2 43 5.5 18 13.1 13 Devon Pension Fund 9.5 18 5.8 15 8.7 54 Dorset Pension Fund 9.6 15 4.4 28 13.7 5 13.2 30 East Riding Pension Fund -4.6 95 0.6 83 6.2 77 9.9 77 East Sussex Pension Fund 6.9 33 2.5 48 11.1 28 13.8 23 Enfield Pension Fund 7.1 30 1.9 65 8.3 59 12.7 37 Flintshire (Clywd) 2.1 68 3.4 35 11.3 26 11.5 50 Gloucestershire Pension Fund 10.2 10 6.8 10 12.2 21 Greenwich Pension Fund 6.3 40 1.8 68 4.3 90 Gwynedd Pension Fund -1.7 88 2.2 50 6.0 80 14.4 13 Haringey Pension Fund 5.0 48 3.5 33 10.1 46 11.9 43 Harrow Pension Fund -26.8 100 -9.7 100 -3.1 100 4.1 97 Greater Manchester Pension Fund 3.8 63 2.2 53 9.8 51 14.1 17 Hillingdon Pension Fund 0.2 80 -3.6 93 -0.7 95 7.2 90 Islington Pension Fund 14.0 1 -5.9 98 1.9 92 5.6 93 Kensington and Chelsea 9.8 13 3.3 38 10.0 49 14.8 10 Kent Pension Fund 7.2 28 5.3 23 13.6 8 17.1 1 1 Year 3 Yrs (%p.a.) 5Yrs (%p.a.) 10Yrs (%p.a.) PRIVATE EQUITY PERFORMANCE Rank Rank Rank Rank Universe Average 3.8 2.7 9.1 12.3 Range of Results Upper Quartile 8.8 5.0 11.5 13.6 Median 4.9 2.2 9.9 11.5 Lower Quartile 0.8 1.6 6.3 9.9 1 Year 3 Yrs (%p.a.) 5Yrs (%p.a.) 10Yrs (%p.a.) Lancashire Pension Fund 4.7 55 1.6 73 12.4 18 14.9 7 Lewisham Pension Fund 10.9 8 5.5 20 12.6 15 13.0 33 Lincolnshire Pension Fund -8.5 98 -4.2 95 -1.2 98 3.7 100 London Pension Fund Authority 5.3 45 2.0 63 8.0 62 Merseyside Pension Fund 6.3 38 2.7 43 10.2 44 12.7 40 Newham Pension Fund 4.9 50 1.8 70 12.0 23 10.1 70 Northamptonshire Pension Fund 1.0 70 2.0 60 10.3 39 7.8 87 Oxfordshire Pension Fund 0.0 85 6.8 8 10.7 31 13.5 27 Powys Pension Fund 9.3 23 5.0 25 15.5 1 16.2 3 South Yorkshire Pension Authority 0.8 75 2.7 40 6.5 72 10.8 63 Southwark Pension Fund 9.4 20 9.3 3 Strathclyde Pension Fund 0.6 78 1.5 80 8.3 57 11.8 47 Suffolk Pension Fund 4.7 53 2.6 45 7.9 64 11.2 60 Surrey Pension Fund 3.9 60 1.6 75 5.3 82 8.2 80 Swansea Pension Fund 11.0 5 7.9 5 5.1 85 10.2 67 West Yorkshire Pension Fund 6.7 35 4.1 30 10.4 36 14.0 20 INFRASTRUCTURE PERFORMANCE Rank Rank Rank Rank Universe Average 5.0 3.9 7.1 7.8 Range of Results Upper Quartile 7.8 6.0 8.9 8.9 Median 4.9 3.5 8.0 6.9 Lower Quartile 2.1 1.9 6.1 6.1 Avon Pension Fund 6.4 39 5.7 28 8.5 36 10.2 15 Barking and Dagenham 0.0 85 0.1 88 4.2 89 4.7 85 Barnet Pension Fund 8.4 22 4.6 42 10.4 16 Berkshire Pension Fund 3.4 61 2.8 64 6.5 67 Bexley Pension Fund 2.1 74 2.0 74 5.4 80 4.3 90 Brent Pension Fund 5.2 46 7.1 8 8.6 29 3.1 100 Cambridgeshire Pension Fund 7.5 25 5.0 38 7.0 55 6.2 59 Camden Pension Fund 5.1 48 6.2 24 8.0 53 Cardiff & Glamorgan Pension Fund 2.9 69 City of London Corporation 11.3 4 6.8 16 11.4 5 15.2 1 Cornwall Pension Fund 3.1 65 0.2 86 3.0 98 6.1 75 Cumbria Pension Fund 9.7 9 6.5 20 9.7 22 Devon Pension Fund 3.3 63 2.3 70 5.0 85 6.0 80 Dorset Pension Fund 9.5 11 4.2 44 8.2 42 8.6 30 Dyfed Pension Fund 4.9 50 Ealing Pension Fund 14.4 2 9.7 4 10.8 7 East Riding Pension Fund 2.0 76 2.1 72 5.0 82 7.4 40 East Sussex Pension Fund 9.4 13 5.1 36 8.7 27 6.7 55 Enfield Pension Fund 10.6 8 1.3 80 1.6 100 Flintshire (Clywd) 8.8 15 7.0 12 12.4 1 10.0 20 Gloucestershire Pension Fund 5.3 45 5.7 30 6.1 73 Greater Manchester Pension Fund 3.5 59 3.2 54 8.1 49 8.9 25 Greenwich Pension Fund -0.1 89 -2.0 92 Gwynedd Pension Fund 8.2 24 7.0 14 10.6 11 Hackney Pension Fund -0.4 87 1 Year 3 Yrs (%p.a.) 5Yrs (%p.a.) 10Yrs (%p.a.) INFRASTRUCTURE PERFORMANCE Rank Rank Rank Rank Universe Average 5.0 3.9 7.1 7.8 Range of Results Upper Quartile 7.8 6.0 8.9 8.9 Median 4.9 3.5 8.0 6.9 Lower Quartile 2.1 1.9 6.1 6.1 1 Year 3 Yrs (%p.a.) 5Yrs (%p.a.) 10Yrs (%p.a.) Hammersmith and Fulham 3.7 58 3.5 52 8.6 31 6.3 60 Haringey Pension Fund -0.5 95 -4.2 100 3.0 96 Harrow Pension Fund 1.3 82 1.7 78 6.3 69 Havering Pension Fund 8.8 17 5.3 32 8.4 38 Hillingdon Pension Fund 6.1 43 8.7 6 10.6 9 11.8 5 Hounslow Pension Fund -0.4 91 -2.4 96 Islington Pension Fund 7.1 28 5.8 26 10.5 13 Kent Pension Fund 10.7 6 10.1 2 11.5 2 8.1 35 Kingston upon Thames -1.9 96 -2.8 98 Lancashire Pension Fund 4.1 56 2.9 62 6.3 71 6.9 50 Lewisham Pension Fund 4.7 52 3.0 56 5.7 78 3.8 95 Lincolnshire Pension Fund -6.8 98 -1.6 90 4.0 93 London Pension Fund Authority 4.4 54 3.5 50 6.7 60 Merseyside Pension Fund 7.1 30 3.0 60 6.6 62 6.2 70 Merton Pension Fund 19.8 1 12.9 1 9.9 18 Newham Pension Fund 2.6 72 6.4 22 6.1 76 Northamptonshire Pension Fund 8.8 19 6.6 18 8.5 33 Oxfordshire Pension Fund 6.9 33 5.1 34 8.2 45 Powys Pension Fund 7.0 32 Rhondda Cynon Taf Pension Fund 1.6 78 3.7 46 South Yorkshire Pension Authority 1.4 80 1.2 82 4.1 91 Southwark Pension Fund -8.1 100 1.1 84 4.6 87 Strathclyde Pension Fund 6.6 35 7.0 10 8.1 47 7.4 45 Suffolk Pension Fund 0.2 83 1.8 76 7.0 58 11.3 10 Sutton Pension Fund 6.5 37 2.8 66 8.0 53 Swansea Pension Fund 2.7 70 3.5 48 8.3 40 Tower Hamlets Pension Fund -0.4 93 -2.0 94 INFRASTRUCTURE PERFORMANCE Rank Rank Rank Rank Universe Average 5.0 3.9 7.1 7.8 Range of Results Upper Quartile 7.8 6.0 8.9 8.9 Median 4.9 3.5 8.0 6.9 Lower Quartile 2.1 1.9 6.1 6.1 1 Year 3 Yrs (%p.a.) 5Yrs (%p.a.) 10Yrs (%p.a.) Wandsworth & Richmond Fund 8.5 20 4.9 40 9.0 25 West Yorkshire Pension Fund 6.2 41 2.7 68 6.5 65 Westminster Pension Fund 3.0 67 3.0 58 9.9 20 PRIVATE DEBT PERFORMANCE Rank Rank Rank Universe Average 6.0 7.0 6.6 Range of Results Upper Quartile 7.3 8.0 8.4 Median 5.9 7.5 7.5 Lower Quartile 5.2 6.5 6.0 Avon Pension Fund 10.3 5 10.8 1 Barnet Pension Fund 8.6 17 8.1 22 8.0 40 Berkshire Pension Fund 6.1 45 7.5 49 6.0 72 Bexley Pension Fund 3.9 93 2.4 97 Brent Pension Fund 9.8 7 6.3 78 Cardiff & Glamorgan Pension Fund 8.8 14 Cornwall Pension Fund 5.9 50 7.6 41 9.0 8 Cumbria Pension Fund 5.2 74 7.0 60 6.0 76 Devon Pension Fund 8.1 19 9.0 8 9.7 1 Dyfed Pension Fund 9.5 12 4.1 95 Ealing Pension Fund 4.9 86 6.8 68 7.8 48 East Riding Pension Fund 7.8 22 7.9 27 8.4 20 Enfield Pension Fund 5.2 72 Flintshire (Clywd) 4.5 91 5.7 87 8.9 16 Gloucestershire Pension Fund 4.9 83 7.5 51 9.1 4 Greater Manchester Pension Fund 5.7 55 8.1 19 8.2 32 Greenwich Pension Fund 12.0 2 7.4 54 Hackney Pension Fund 7.3 24 Hammersmith and Fulham 5.1 79 7.8 33 4.9 96 Haringey Pension Fund 5.6 60 4.8 92 -2.1 100 Harrow Pension Fund 5.4 67 9.1 6 Havering Pension Fund 6.6 41 8.1 16 8.4 28 Hillingdon Pension Fund 12.1 1 7.8 30 8.0 44 Hounslow Pension Fund 2.3 98 Islington Pension Fund 5.4 62 6.7 73 1 Year 3 Yrs (%p.a.) 5Yrs (%p.a.) PRIVATE DEBT PERFORMANCE Rank Rank Rank Universe Average 6.0 7.0 6.6 Range of Results Upper Quartile 7.3 8.0 8.4 Median 5.9 7.5 7.5 Lower Quartile 5.2 6.5 6.0 1 Year 3 Yrs (%p.a.) 5Yrs (%p.a.) Kingston upon Thames 4.8 88 7.1 57 Lancashire Pension Fund 6.7 38 7.6 38 5.6 84 Lewisham Pension Fund 6.8 33 5.4 89 6.1 68 Lincolnshire Pension Fund 6.0 48 6.4 76 9.0 12 London Pension Fund Authority 6.7 36 7.6 43 5.3 88 Merseyside Pension Fund 5.1 76 7.0 62 7.3 52 Merton Pension Fund 5.4 69 8.0 24 6.9 56 Newham Pension Fund 3.9 95 7.7 35 8.0 36 Oxfordshire Pension Fund 9.7 10 10.8 3 Powys Pension Fund 5.4 64 South Yorkshire Pension Authority -5.3 100 2.0 100 5.3 92 Strathclyde Pension Fund 7.2 29 7.0 65 6.6 60 Suffolk Pension Fund 6.9 31 8.4 14 5.9 80 Sutton Pension Fund 5.0 81 5.8 81 Swansea Pension Fund 5.9 52 6.7 70 6.2 64 Wandsworth & Richmond Fund 5.7 57 7.6 46 8.4 24 West Yorkshire Pension Fund 7.2 26 5.8 84 Westminster Pension Fund 6.1 43 9.0 11 ASSET ALLOCATION AT END MARCH Equity Bonds Private Equity Infra- structure Other Alts Private Debt Property Cash Average 49 18 6 8 2 4 8 3 Range Top Quartile 57 25 6 9 5 6 10 4 Median 50 20 3 7 3 1 7 2 Bottom Quartile 43 16 0 5 1 0 5 1 Avon Pension Fund 34 35 0 9 5 0 15 3 Barking and Dagenham 59 19 10 5 0 0 6 1 Barnet Pension Fund 25 44 5 9 6 0 5 5 Berkshire Pension Fund 51 3 11 11 13 0 8 3 Bexley Pension Fund 33 27 9 10 3 6 12 0 Brent Pension Fund 55 18 0 5 4 7 3 8 Bromley Pension Fund 58 29 0 0 0 0 13 0 Cambridgeshire Pension Fund 42 26 14 7 0 0 11 0 Camden Pension Fund 55 21 2 9 0 3 9 2 Cardiff & Glamorgan Pension Fund 63 17 5 4 6 0 5 1 City of London Corporation 57 23 0 5 0 11 5 0 Cornwall Pension Fund 36 24 6 12 2 12 5 3 Cumbria Pension Fund 34 19 10 16 8 0 7 4 Devon Pension Fund 49 25 3 10 4 1 7 2 Dorset Pension Fund 61 13 3 7 0 6 7 2 Dyfed Pension Fund 69 10 0 2 2 4 13 0 Ealing Pension Fund 63 18 0 4 3 0 7 5 East Riding Pension Fund 47 19 5 7 4 10 6 2 East Sussex Pension Fund 38 11 7 11 1 24 6 2 Enfield Pension Fund 43 22 6 8 12 0 6 2 Flintshire (Clywd) 16 50 9 8 3 7 3 3 Gloucestershire Pension Fund 56 17 3 8 2 1 7 7 Greater Manchester Pension Fund 43 21 5 8 4 3 10 4 Greenwich Pension Fund 48 25 3 3 5 6 8 2 ASSET ALLOCATION AT END MARCH Equity Bonds Private Equity Infra- structure Other Alts Private Debt Property Cash Average 49 18 6 8 2 4 8 3 Range Top Quartile 57 25 6 9 5 6 10 4 Median 50 20 3 7 3 1 7 2 Bottom Quartile 43 16 0 5 1 0 5 1 Gwynedd Pension Fund 48 32 5 6 2 0 6 2 Hackney Pension Fund 48 27 0 7 10 0 7 0 Hammersmith and Fulham 46 26 0 6 6 10 5 1 Haringey Pension Fund 41 26 6 5 2 3 13 5 Harrow Pension Fund 50 16 0 11 17 0 1 5 Havering Pension Fund 43 15 0 11 7 12 7 4 Hillingdon Pension Fund 57 16 0 5 5 5 12 1 Hounslow Pension Fund 69 21 0 2 2 0 4 2 Islington Pension Fund 50 8 0 11 11 1 16 3 Kensington and Chelsea 72 0 7 0 0 0 18 3 Kent Pension Fund 54 20 5 4 0 5 10 3 Kingston upon Thames 46 33 0 5 4 5 3 4 Lancashire Pension Fund 42 7 6 14 19 0 10 2 Lewisham Pension Fund 49 18 5 9 8 0 6 4 Lincolnshire Pension Fund 49 22 0 1 17 0 9 2 London Pension Fund Authority 48 4 5 12 17 0 10 3 Merseyside Pension Fund 54 11 8 8 5 2 10 2 Merton Pension Fund 35 28 0 15 2 6 10 4 Newham Pension Fund 53 13 5 5 4 4 10 6 Northamptonshire Pension Fund 43 32 7 6 0 1 11 0 Oxfordshire Pension Fund 53 15 11 4 3 0 9 6 Powys Pension Fund 38 23 8 9 3 13 5 0 Redbridge Pension Fund 59 23 0 10 0 1 6 1 ASSET ALLOCATION AT END MARCH Equity Bonds Private Equity Infra- structure Other Alts Private Debt Property Cash Average 49 18 6 8 2 4 8 3 Range Top Quartile 57 25 6 9 5 6 10 4 Median 50 20 3 7 3 1 7 2 Bottom Quartile 43 16 0 5 1 0 5 1 Rhondda Cynon Taf Pension Fund 63 28 0 3 0 0 6 0 South Yorkshire Pension Authority 44 15 11 13 4 2 9 1 Southwark Pension Fund 53 19 3 9 0 0 16 1 Strathclyde Pension Fund 45 18 6 9 3 0 10 9 Suffolk Pension Fund 47 25 3 8 4 0 10 3 Surrey Pension Fund 61 16 18 0 0 0 5 0 Sutton Pension Fund 56 23 0 7 4 3 3 3 Swansea Pension Fund 53 18 10 5 2 5 3 5 Torfaen ( Gwent )Pension Fund 69 13 0 0 0 17 1 0 Tower Hamlets Pension Fund 43 22 0 4 0 15 10 5 Waltham Forest Pension Fund 52 24 0 3 1 8 5 6 West Yorkshire Pension Fund 59 16 6 6 2 4 3 4 Westminster Pension Fund 59 13 0 16 5 0 6 1 Wandsworth & Richmond Fund 59 20 0 9 4 0 4 4 These tables are intended solely for the use of the participating funds. Whilst individual fund returns and rankings may be used, the tables in their entirety should not be copied or distributed beyond these funds. While all reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this document there is no warranty, express or implied, as to its accuracy or completeness. Any opinions expressed in this document are subject to change without notice. The document is for general information only and PIRC Ltd accepts no responsibility for any loss arising from any action taken or not taken by anyone using this material.

Classification: Public Pensions Committee 29 September 2026 RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENTS UPDATE ITEM 7 Committee Pensions Committee Officer Reporting Babatunde Adekoya, Finance Papers with this report Full manager voting - Shared drive. LGIM Engagement Report Q2 2026 – Shared drive LAPFF Engagement Report Q2 2026 – Shared drive HEADLINES Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) refers to the three central factors in measuring the sustainability and societal impact of an investment in a company or business. These criteria help to better determine the future financial performance of companies (return and risk). The purpose of this report is to provide information on how managers entrusted with investing the Pension Fund assets are implementing their ESG policies and demonstrate their commitment to ensuring it is a cogent part of their investment process. In addition, the report details the progress on the UK Stewardship Code project, policy updates and other relevant information. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Pensions Committee: 1. Note the fund managers’ ESG activities and compliance efforts 2. Note LGIM, LCIV & LAPFF activities SUPPORTING INFORMATION Voting and Engagement Fund managers carry out proxy voting on the Pension Fund’s behalf. Below is a breakdown of voting statistics by LGIM, and London CIV (Ruffer and Baillie Gifford). Classification: Public Pensions Committee 29 September 2026 Fund Managers Voting Breakdown Q2, 2026 LCIV Meetings Resolutions Votes With Against Abstention/Non -Voting Jun-26 LCIV - Ruffer 213 2,817 2,720 41 56 LCIV - Baillie Gifford 60 830 662 105 63 273 3,647 3,382 146 119 % 92.73 4.00 3.26 LGIM Meetings Resolutions Votes With Against Abstention Jun-26 8,851 94,518 72,156 21,876 486 8,851 94,518 72,156 21,876 486 % 76.34 23.14 0.51 Fund Managers Voting Breakdown - Q2 2026 The voting activity undertaken by the Fund's investment managers reflects a strong commitment to stewardship and responsible investment principles. The significant number of meetings attended, and resolutions considered demonstrates active engagement with investee companies and the use of voting rights to promote good governance, accountability, and sustainable long-term value creation. LGIM remained the most active manager in terms of voting volume, participating in 8,851 meetings and voting on 94,518 resolutions during the quarter. LGIM supported management recommendations on 76.3% of voting opportunities (72,156 resolutions) while voti ng against management on 23.1% of occasions (21,876 resolutions). Abstentions were limited to 0.5% of resolutions (486 votes). The relatively high proportion of votes cast against management reflects LGIM's willingness to challenge company boards where governance, remuneration, shareholder rights, climate-related matters, or other ESG considerations are considered inconsistent with its stewardship expectations. Within the London CIV portfolio, voting activity was undertaken by Ruffer and Baillie Gifford, who collectively attended 273 meetings and voted on 3,647 resolutions. Overall, management recommendations were supported in 92.7% of cases (3,382 resolutions), while 4.0% (146 resolutions) were voted against and 3.3% (119 resolutions) resulted in abstentions or non -votes. This pattern suggests broad alignment with company proposals while maintaining the ability to oppose resolutions where managers identify concer ns relating to governance standards, shareholder interests, or other material stewardship issues. At the manager level, Ruffer attended 213 meetings and voted on 2,817 resolutions, supporting management in 96.6% of cases, voting against 1.5%, and abstaining on Classification: Public Pensions Committee 29 September 2026 2.0% of resolutions. Baillie Gifford attended 60 meetings and voted on 830 resolutions, supporting management on 79.8% of resolutions, voting against 12.7%, and abstaining on 7.6%. Baillie Gifford's higher level of dissent compared with Ruffer indicates a more interventionist voting approach on selected governance and stewardship matters. Overall, the voting statistics demonstrate that the Fund's investment managers continue to exercise their ownership responsibilities actively, using voting rights as a key stewardship tool to influence corporate behaviour, promote good governance practices, and protect the long-term interests of Fund members and beneficiaries. Classification: Public Pensions Committee 29 September 2026 The snapshots below further contextualise the voting patterns and issues addressed with voting decisions by the managers above. LGIM Classification: Public Pensions Committee 29 September 2026 Engagement ESG factors play an increasingly important role in determining the performance of certain assets. Pension Fund asset managers, as part of their ESG commitments undertake various engagement activities in their holistic approach in making investment decision s. These activities aim to affect changes within invested companies where it is deemed necessary or to complement existing practices. LGIM Holding boards to account To be successful, companies need to have people at the helm who are well equipped to create resilient long-term growth. By voting and engaging directly with companies, LGIM encourages management to control risks while seeking to benefit from emerging opportunities. The manager aims to safeguard and enhance clients’ assets by engaging with companies and holding management to account for their decisions. Voting is an important tool in this process, and one which they use extensively. Creating sustainable value LGIM believe it is in the interest of all stakeholders for companies to build sustainable business models that are also beneficial to society. They work to ensure companies are well -positioned for sustainable growth, and to prevent market behaviour that destroys long-term value. Their investment process includes an assessment of how well companies incorporate relevant ESG factors into their everyday thinking. The manager engages directly and collaboratively with companies to highlight key challenges and opportunities, and support strategies that seek to deliver long -term success. Promoting market resilience As a long-term investor for its clients, it is essential that markets (and, by extension, the companies within them) can generate sustainable value. In doing so, LGIM believe companies should become more resilient amid change and therefore, seek to benefit the whole market. They use their influence and scale to ensure that issues affecting the value of clients’ investments are recognised and appropriately managed. This includes working with key policymakers, such as governments and regulators, and collaborating with asset owners to bring about positive change across markets. Global Investment Stewardship themes LGIM Investment Stewardship activity is structured around six core themes: • Climate: Keeping 1.5°C alive • Nature: Supporting a world that lives in harmony with nature, recognising the economic value of natural capital • People: Improving human capital across the corporate value chain Classification: Public Pensions Committee 29 September 2026 • Health: Safeguarding global health to limit negative consequences for the global economy • Governance: Strengthening accountability to deliver stakeholder value • Digitisation: Establishing minimum standards for how companies manage digitisation-related risks The manager believes these themes are financially material to their clients’ portfolios, often pose systemic risks and opportunities, and cover areas where LGIM as an asset manager can influence change. Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative LGIM has committed to remain signatory to the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, reflecting their long‑standing belief that climate risk is investment risk. The manager is focused on supporting clients through robust climate -risk mitigation, active stewardship, and investment in economically viable transition opportunities. The Net Zero Asset Managers (NZAM) Initiative is a global, voluntary coalition enabling asset managers to commit to and transparently report on strategies that support net-zero emissions. NZAM was suspended in January 2025 due to political and regulatory pressures particularly rising antiESG sentiment in the U.S. and after major departures such as BlackRock. After facing political and regulatory challenges, it relaunched in 2026 with an updated, more flexible framework that continues to align with the goals of the Paris Agreement while accommodating global diversity in regulation and practice. The initiative has over 250 managers as signatories. Engagement Focus LGIM Environment Climate transition plans in the mining sector: Anglo American Plc Identify Mining companies and the critical minerals that they produce are essential to the clean energy transition. As such, they have formed a key sector within LGIM’s engagement on climate change for a few years, and they have focused specifically on what they look for to support mining companies’ climate transition plans. In this case study, LGIM focused solely on its climate transition plan, which the company put to a shareholder vote at their Q2 2026 AGM. Classification: Public Pensions Committee 29 September 2026 Engage Having voted against Anglo’s initial climate transition plan in 2022, LGIM have engaged with the company extensively on its transition strategy. This engagement bridged well-publicised merger and acquisition activity, incorporating both the unsolicited (and ultimately unsuccessful) bid by BHP Group, and the proposed and recently approved merger with Teck Resources Ltd. Additionally, alongside the engagement, Anglo has begun to restructure its portfolio, focusing on copper and premium iron ore, a process which LGIM have supported. This involves selling its metallurgical coal business, floating its South African platinum business, disposing of its diamond business and farming down its crop nutrients project. This activity is important in terms of framing the backdrop against which LGIM’s engagements have taken place, and the strategic decisions taken by the company have had clear implications for its climate transition plan. As part of its engagement on this plan, LGIM clearly set out, with reference to our mining transition plan expectations, what we would like to see from the company to support it, and we engaged with their climate team as part of this ongoing dialogue. LAPFF During the quarter LAPFF engaged various companies worldwide on issues covering all aspects of ESG during the quarter under review. Below are two examples of their engagement activities in Q2 2026. Environment Climate change represents a systemic and financially material risk for long ‑term investors. LAPFF believes that companies with credible, measurable, and transparent climate transition plans are better equipped to manage these risks. Although more companies now publish transition plans, many still lack science‑based targets, delivery pathways, or transparent financial alignment. LAPFF considers regular shareholder oversight—via “Say on Climate” votes at least every three years —to be essential for accountability, especially for minority shareholders. CLIMATE CHANGE Mitigation: BP Objective LAPFF’s objective is to engage with oil and gas companies, particularly BP, to ensure their business models and capital allocation decisions appropriately reflect climate transition risks and support long -term shareholder value. LAPFF advocates a disciplined “managed decline” approach, prioritising low -cost assets, reducing excessive investment in new oil and gas projects, and improving transparency on how capital is allocated. Classification: Public Pensions Committee 29 September 2026 Achieved In response to BP’s 2025 strategy shift back towards hydrocarbons, LAPFF co -filed Resolution 24 at the 2026 AGM, requesting greater disclosure on the company’s capital discipline, project risk assessment, and value generated from exploration spending. The resolution received over 28% shareholder support, triggering a formal requirement for BP to engage with shareholders, consult on concerns raised, and publicly report on the actions it will take in response within six months. Social CCLA Modern Slavery Benchmark Engagements Overall Engagement Objective LAPFF used the CCLA Modern Slavery Global Benchmark to assess whether companies are moving beyond policy commitments and compliance -led reporting towards robust modern slavery risk management through stronger due diligence, supply chain mapping, governance, remediation and transparent disclosure. Company Objective Achieved [Philip Morris International (PMI)] Encourage stronger due diligence, deeper supply chain mapping, greater transparency, effective remediation, and evidence of modern slavery risk management beyond policy commitments. Demonstrated relatively mature controls with farm-level monitoring, supplier traceability, external verification and corrective action processes. Needs clearer public reporting on outcomes, non- conformances and remediation. Salesforce Improve identification, prioritisation and disclosure of modern slavery risks, including indirect supply chain exposure, and strengthen evidence of due diligence effectiveness. Engaged constructively and outlined compliance-based controls, supplier assessments and governance processes. However, disclosure remains limited, with more evidence needed on risk prioritisation, due diligence and measurable outcomes. Amgen Strengthen supply chain due diligence, transparency, governance, remediation processes and understanding of risks beyond tier 1 suppliers. Highlighted supplier standards, audits, whistleblowing mechanisms and board oversight. Responses lacked sufficient detail on how modern slavery risks are identified, managed and remediated, prompting follow-up questions. Key Overall Outcome Classification: Public Pensions Committee 29 September 2026 • PMI: Strongest evidence of practical supply chain oversight and traceability. • Salesforce: Compliance framework in place but limited evidence of outcomes. • Amgen: Governance structures evident, but detailed due diligence and remediation evidence remains unclear. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS ESG initiatives included within the Pension Fund budget. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Legal implications are included in the report.

Classification: Public Pensions Committee 29 September 2026 Pension Fund Risk Register Item 8 Committee Pension Committee Officer Reporting Pete Carpenter - Finance Tunde Adekoya, Finance Papers with this report Pension Fund Risk Register Open & Closed Risk Matrix HEADLINES The purpose of this report is to identify to the Pension Committee the main risks to the Pension Fund and to enable them to monitor and review risks going forward (see appendices). RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Pensions Committee: • Consider and agree the Risk Register in terms of the approach, the specific risks identified, and the measures being taken to mitigate those current risks. • Note the format agreeing the retired risks and those which remain open SUPPORTING INFORMATION Risk Register The Council’s risk management software, JCAD, permits all 14 risks to be classified into two categories, open and closed risks. The software allows risks that are being managed as , day-to-day, business as usual items, to be retired but maintained in the background as a record. In the event the risk requires active management it can then easily be re-introduced. Whilst open risks are constantly monitored and reviewed every three months, to ensure the status are still aligned with the risk measurement. Attached are two reports covering open and retired/closed risks: Closed risks being managed as business as usual or tolerated include: • PEN 1 - Fund assets fail to deliver returns in line with the anticipated returns underpinning the valuation • PEN 2 - Inappropriate long-term investment strategy Classification: Public Pensions Committee 29 September 2026 • PEN 3 - Active investment manager under-performance relative to benchmark • PEN 4 - Inflation - Pay and price inflation significantly more than anticipated • PEN 5 - Pensioners living longer • PEN 6 - Poor Performance of Outsourced Administrator • PEN 8 - ESG - Risk of financial loss through the negative impact of ESG matters Risks which remain open, and which are actively being managed Include: • PEN 7 - Cyber Security • PEN 9 - Liquidity on asset management - risk of failure to liquidate assets or meet drawdown calls • Pen 10 - Liquidity on members dealings - risk that the fund is unable to settle member payments • PEN 11 - Failure of the pool in management of funds / access to funds • PEN 12 - Failure of the Fund’s governance to comply with statutory requirements • PEN 13 - Key officer risk • PEN 14 - Failure of employers to deliver accurate and timely employee administration information Six of the seven open risks remain unchanged from the previous quarter. However, PEN13 (Key Officer Risk) has been increased due to uncertainty surrounding the “Fit for the Future” 2026 regulations implementation, which require each administering authority to appoint a Senior Responsible Officer (SRO) with overall accountability for the Pension Fund. At present, there is no clear guidance on the reporting framework for this role, its interaction with the Section 151 Officer, or the final person specification. There is a risk that, if the current Director of Pensions is unable to transition into the SRO role by the December 2026 deadline, a leadership gap could emerge within the pension administration and management structure, further heightening risk exposure. In addition, succession planning across the wider Pension Fund officer group will need to be reviewed and strengthened to ensure continuity of operations and resilience against potential staffing changes. The significance of risks is measured by interaction of the likelihood of occurrence (likelihood) and by the potential damage that might be caused by an occurrence (impact). The risks are also RAG (Red, Amber, Green) rated to identify level. Scoring is included in the attached Risk Matrix. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The financial implications are contained in the risk register attached. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The legal implications are contained in the risk register attached.

Risk Ref Risk Title and Description Causes Consequences Status Risk Owner Risk Category Directorate Service Risk Type Created Date Current Rating Controlled Profile Controlled Rating Uncontrolled Profile Uncontrolled Rating PENS0009 PEN 9 - Liquidity on asset management - risk of failure to liquidate assets or meet drawdown calls Lack of notice given for drawdown Poor cashflow management Unable to meet trades Financial penalties Overdraft fees Static Tunde Adekoya Financial Finance Directorate Statutory Accounting, Investments & Pensions Operational 30/05/2024 8 F1 4 E1 8 PENS0011 PEN 11 - Failure of the pool in management of funds / access to funds Lack of interest in common fund launch Poor CIV governance Government intervention Lack of diversity in investment Inability to meet pooling requirement Unable to meet any changing in ISS requirements Static Tunde Adekoya Financial Finance Directorate Statutory Accounting, Investments & Pensions Operational 30/05/2024 12 E1 8 E1 8 PENS0017 PEN 12 - Failure of the Fund’s governance to comply with statutory requirements New General CoP needs gap analysis and rectification GMP moral vs regulatory requirement Knowledge gaps resulting in ineffectiveness of Committee and/or Board Actions taken against the Fund by TPR for non code compliance Not delivering best practice in accordance with the new code TPR/DLUHC action taken against the Fund for not GMP non compliance Poor decisions and/or oversight by Committee/Board members Static Tunde Adekoya Statutory Service Provision Finance Directorate Statutory Accounting, Investments & Pensions Operational 30/05/2024 6 E4 2 D3 6 PENS0015 PEN 14 - Failure of employers to deliver accurate and timely employee administration information Poor outsource contract management by employers Poor performance of outsourced service providers Inadequate payroll reporting by Hillingdon Council Lack of ownership by employers Inaccurate pension records Reporting of employers to TPR - and subsequent ramifications (Fines) Incorrect pensions being paid Pensions payment not processed efficiently Additional pension administration costs Static Tunde Adekoya Statutory Service Provision Finance Directorate Statutory Accounting, Investments & Pensions Operational 30/05/2024 8 F4 1 A3 12 PENS0024 PEN 7 - Cyber Security Inappropriate cyber protection, ongoing management and contingency planning leading to vulnerabilities. Los of data Ransom demands Non delivery of statutory service Static Tunde Adekoya IT & Technology Finance Directorate Statutory Accounting, Investments & Pensions Operational 30/05/2024 8 E1 8 E1 8 PENS0010 Pen 10 - Liquidity on members dealings - risk that the fund is unable to settle member payments Cashflow negative (Payments greater than income) Increased Pensions payment due to inflation. Non payment of pensions Negative impact on pensioners Reputational damage Fines Static Tunde Adekoya Financial Finance Directorate Statutory Accounting, Investments & Pensions Operational 30/05/2024 4 E3 4 E3 4 PENS0016 PEN 13 - Key officer risk Small team with specialist knowledge in each role. Limited capacity for succession planning. Non delivery of service statutory requirements Agency staff costs to cover any vacant position. Increasing Risk Tunde Adekoya Statutory Service Provision Finance Directorate Statutory Accounting, Investments & Pensions Operational 30/05/2024 9 E4 2 B3 10

Risk Ref Risk Title and Description Causes Consequences Status Risk Owner Risk Category Directorate Service Risk Type Created Date Current Rating Controlled Profile Controlled Rating Uncontrolled Profile Uncontrolled Rating PENS0020 PEN 01 - Fund assets fail to deliver returns in line with the anticipated returns underpinning valuation Market and economic environment not conducive to asset performance. Incorrect asset allocation. Underperforming fund managers. Reduced asset value. Reduced funding level. Increase in employer contributions. Closed/Tolerated Tunde Adekoya Financial Finance Directorate Statutory Accounting, Investments & Pensions Operational 29/05/2024 12 D1 12 D1 12 PENS0021 PEN 02 - Inappropriate long-term investment strategy Incorrect asset allocation and fund manager selection. Increased employer contributions. Closed/Tolerated Tunde Adekoya Financial Finance Directorate Statutory Accounting, Investments & Pensions Operational 29/05/2024 12 E1 8 D1 12 PENS0019 PEN 03 - Active investment manager under-performance relative to benchmark Incorrect manager decisions Incorrect market environment for their Strategy Key staff loss Reduced investment returns vs passive strategy Lower returns / funding level Increased employer contributions Closed/Tolerated Tunde Adekoya Financial Finance Directorate Statutory Accounting, Investments & Pensions Operational 29/05/2024 12 D1 12 D1 12 PENS0023 PEN 04 - Inflation - Pay and price inflation significantly more than anticipated Global and national market/geo political environment causing higher inflation. Incorrect BoE actions to rectify Increased pension payments / cashflow negative Reduced asset values & increased negative actuarial assumptions reduce funding level Discount rate may be higher which could improve funding level Closed/Tolerated Tunde Adekoya Financial Finance Directorate Statutory Accounting, Investments & Pensions Operational 29/05/2024 12 E1 8 D1 12 PENS0018 PEN 05 - Pensioners living longer Improvements in longevity Pension costs exceeding forecast Reduced funding level Closed/Tolerated Tunde Adekoya Financial Finance Directorate Statutory Accounting, Investments & Pensions Operational 30/05/2024 6 E2 6 E2 6 PENS0025 PEN 06 - Poor Performance of Outsourced Administrator Poor service delivery of outsource partner Poor contract management Lack of action when improvements required Non delivery of pension payments Non compliance with pension regulations Closed/Tolerated Tunde Adekoya Statutory Service Provision Finance Directorate Statutory Accounting, Investments & Pensions Operational 30/05/2024 6 F2 3 E2 6 PENS0022 PEN 8 - ESG - Risk of financial loss through the negative impact of ESG matters Negative ESG influences creating an environment where investments/companies perform poorly. Reduced asset value Reduced funding level Closed/Tolerated Tunde Adekoya Financial Finance Directorate Statutory Accounting, Investments & Pensions Operational 30/05/2024 0 Not Set 0 Not Set 0

Classification: Public Pensions Committee 29 September 2026 GOVERNANCE Part I Item 9 Committee Pensions Committee Officer Reporting Pete Carpenter, Finance Tunde Adekoya, Finance Papers with report Pension Committee Workplan Updated Pension Fund Training Policy and Appendices Pension Fund Training Plan HEADLINES This report is to enable the Pension Committee to review the Committee workplan, note governance updates as well as approval of various triennial and interim policy updates. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Committee: 1. Note the dates for Pensions Committee meetings. 2. Note Committee Work Plan 3. Note and Approve updated Training Policy and Plan SUPPORTING INFORMATION The Pension Committee workplan has been updated and is now shown as an appendix to this report. The policies listed below have been rescheduled for review at the dates next to each policy to ensure that they are in line with triennial valuation and responsibly manage Pensions committee agenda items. Governance Policy & Compliance Statement– December 26 Pension Board Annual Report – December 26 Scheme Pays Policy – December 26 Committee are asked to review the workplan and make suggestions for consideration and inclusion. The new pensions legislation and related Fit for The Future guidance only received Royal Assent in May and published at the end of June respectively. The Work plan and relevant policies will need to be re-visited for changes to Guidance. Agreed future meeting dates: 10 December 2026 31 March 2027 Classification: Public Pensions Committee 29 September 2026 Pension Fund Training Policy and Plan Introduction Members are asked to consider and approve the updated London Borough of Hillingdon Pension Fund Training and Knowledge & Skills Policy (September 2026) together with the accompanying Annual Training Plan. The Policy sets out the Fund's framework for ensuring that Pension Committee members, Local Pension Board members, officers and advisers maintain the necessary knowledge, skills and competence to fulfil their respective governance responsibilities effectively. The revised Policy reflects the expectations of The Pensions Regulator's General Code of Practice, the CIPFA Knowledge and Skills Framework and wider LGPS governance requirements. It introduces a structured approach to induction, continuous professional development, competency assessment and training monitoring, while also incorporating emerging governance priorities arising from the LGPS "Fit for the Future" agenda, including cyber security, climate risk, data governance and diversity in decision-making. The accompanying Annual Training Plan translates the Policy into a practical programme of learning and development for the coming year, ensuring that key governance, investment, funding, administration and regulatory topics are covered. Approval of both the Policy and Training Plan will demonstrate the Committee's commitment to maintaining high standards of governance, supporting informed decision-making and meeting regulatory expectations regarding knowledge and understanding. Under the LGPS “Fit for the Future” reforms, the approach to training for Pension Committee members is being significantly strengthened and formalised. While interpretation of the final detailed statutory guidance is still evolving, the direction of travel is now clear. Under Fit for the Future (2026) Training for Pension Committee members will become: • Formalised through a statutory training strategy and governance framework. • A core governance requirement rather than a voluntary development activity. • Evidence-based, with training completion and competence expected to be monitored and recorded. • Subject to increased scrutiny through governance reviews and reporting requirements. Expectations of Pension Committee Members, Pension Board Members and Officers All above will be expected to: • Maintain appropriate and up-to-date knowledge and understanding of the LGPS and their governance responsibilities. • Participate in structured and continuous training programmes. Classification: Public Pensions Committee 29 September 2026 • Demonstrate competence across key areas including governance, funding, investments, risk management and regulatory compliance. • Apply their knowledge effectively when making decisions on behalf of the Pension Fund. Responsibilities of the Administering Authority Administering authorities will be required to: • Develop and maintain a formal Training Strategy. • Implement training frameworks, annual training plans and monitoring arrangements. • Maintain records of attendance, completion and ongoing competency. • Report on training compliance as part of the Fund's wider governance arrangements. • Treat training as a key governance control supporting informed and effective decision-making. Key Message: Training is now viewed as a fundamental component of good pension fund governance. Under Fit for the Future, Pension Committee members will be expected not only to attend training but also to demonstrate ongoing competence and effective application of their knowledge in carrying out their duties. Please refer to item 13 (page) of the Training policy for possible sanctions for non- compliant individuals to the training requirements and possible sanctions are outlined in Appendix E of the training policy. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Continued training will incur fees dependant on the platform and events attended. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Where applicable the legal implications are included within the body of the report.

London Borough of Hillingdon Pension Fund - Pensions Committee agenda plan Frequency Last review Sept 26 Dec 26 Mar 27 June 27 Policies Governance Policy & Compliance Statement inc Governance Compliance Statement Dec-23 Y Conflicts of Interests Policy Mar-23 Y Risk Management Policy Mar-25 Procedure for Reporting Breaches of the Law Oct-24 Funding Strategy Statement Mar-26 Investment Strategy Statement Mar-26 Responsible Investment Policy Mar-26 Training Policy Dec-23 Y Pensions Administration Strategy Dec-25 Y Scheme pays policy Dec-23 Y Internal Disputes Resolution Procedure (IDRP) Employees Guide Dec-25 Communications Policy Sep-24 Discretions Policy Jun-25 Pensions Administration Pensions Administration Performance Quarterly Y Y Y Y Breaches, Complaints and Appeals Annually Pension Board Annual Report Annually Y Funding Actuarial Valuation Every 3 years Mar-26 Investment Review of Investment Strategy Every 3 years Mar-26 Investment update and manager review Quarterly Y Y Y Y Responsible Investment Update Quarterly Y Y Y Y Climate Risk Dashbaord (TCFD) Every 3 years Dec-25 At least every 3 years

1 LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON PENSION FUND TRAINING AND KNOWLEDGE & SKILLS POLICY September 2026 Table of Contents Section Title Page 1 Introduction 3 2 Policy Objectives 4 3 Scope 4 4 Governance Framework 5 5 Knowledge and Competence Requirements 5 5.1 Core Competency Framework 5 5.2 Role-Specific Expectations 6 6 Induction and Minimum Standards 6 7 Continuous Professional Development (CPD) 6 7.1 CPD Requirements 7 7.2 Training Delivery Methods 7 8 Knowledge Assessment and Development 7 8.1 Competency Assessment 7 8.2 Personal Development Plans 7 9 Training Programme 8 9.1 Core Areas 8 9.2 Enhanced “Fit for the Future” Topics 8 10 Professionalisation and Accreditation 8 11 Recording and Evidence 9 12 Reporting and Assurance 9 13 Non-Compliance and Escalation 10 14 Key Risks 10 15 Costs 10 16 Monitoring and Review 11 2 17 Responsibility 11 18 Further Information 11 Appendices • Appendix A – Annual Training Plan • Appendix B – Competency Assessment Template • Appendix C – CPD Recording Form • Appendix D – Training Attendance Register • Appendix E – Sanctions for non-compliance 3 1. Introduction The London Borough of Hillingdon Pension Fund recognises that effective governance depends upon those involved in the management and oversight of the Fund possessing the appropriate knowledge, skills, understanding and experience to discharge their responsibilities. The Fund is committed to maintaining a culture of continuous learning and professional development that supports informed decision-making, robust challenge, effective risk management and compliance with applicable legislative and regulatory requirements. This Policy establishes a structured framework for the identification, development, assessment and monitoring of knowledge and skills across all individuals who contribute to the governance and administration of the Fund. It reflects the expectations of The Pensions Regulator's General Code of Practice, the CIPFA Knowledge and Skills Framework and forms an integral component of the Fund's Internal Control Framework. This Policy supports the Fund’s commitment to strong governance and aligns with: • The Pensions Regulator (TPR) General Code of Practice (2024) • The CIPFA Knowledge and Skills Framework • The Public Service Pensions Act 2013 • Relevant guidance issued by the Scheme Advisory Board (SAB) The Policy is a key component of the Fund's internal governance and control framework and supports compliance with the expectations of The Pensions Regulator's General Code. 4 2. Policy Objectives The primary objective of this Policy is to ensure that all individuals involved in the management, administration and oversight of the Fund possess and maintain an appropriate level of knowledge and understanding to perform their roles effectively. The Policy seeks to support informed and evidence-based decision-making, strengthen governance arrangements, enhance accountability and ensure compliance with statutory duties and regulatory expectations. Through structured training, competency assessment and ongoing professional development, the Fund aims to create a sustainable governance framework that supports both current responsibilities and future challenges facing the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS). The Fund aims to ensure that: • Individuals responsible for governance and management possess sufficient knowledge and understanding to carry out their duties effectively • Decision-makers can challenge advice, manage risk, and make informed decisions • Knowledge and skills are continuously developed and evidenced • Training contributes directly to effective governance, risk management, and regulatory compliance • The Fund demonstrates clear audit trails and assurance regarding competence 3. Scope This Policy applies to all individuals who play a significant role in the governance, management, administration or oversight of the Fund. Whilst specific training requirements may vary according to role and responsibility, all relevant parties are expected to engage with the principles of this Policy and contribute to maintaining a high standard of knowledge and competence. The Fund recognises that effective governance is dependent upon collective capability across all stakeholders, including elected members, officers, advisers and service providers. As such, the Policy promotes a consistent approach to training and development whilst recognising differing levels of technical responsibility and expertise. This Policy applies to: • Members of the Pensions Committee including alternates/substitutes and co-opted members • Members of the Local Pension Board • All officers involved in pension fund management, including the Section 151 Officer • Advisers, including but not limited to the Independent Person and the Scheme Actuary, and service providers (expected to meet comparable standards) It also informs training made available to participating employers. 5 4. Governance Framework Knowledge and skills development form a key pillar of the Fund's governance framework. Appropriate training supports the effective operation of internal controls, strengthens risk management activities and enhances the quality of decision-making across all aspects of fund management. The Fund views competence as a key governance control and recognises that inadequate knowledge and understanding may increase the likelihood of operational, investment, regulatory and reputational risks. Consequently, training requirements are considered alongside strategic objectives, risk management arrangements and the wider Governance framework. Training and knowledge are embedded within the Fund’s governance framework by: • Supporting effective decision-making and oversight • Mitigating risks identified in the risk register • Ensuring compliance with internal controls and regulatory obligations • Supporting the delivery of the Governance Objectives Responsibility for oversight of this Policy rests with: • The Pensions Committee (decision-making body) • The Local Pension Board (oversight and compliance monitoring) 5. Knowledge and Competence Requirements The Fund adopts a structured approach to competency management based upon recognised industry standards and regulatory expectations. Knowledge and competence requirements are aligned to the CIPFA Knowledge and Skills Framework and are tailored to the responsibilities associated with each role. The Fund expects all individuals to maintain sufficient understanding of the areas relevant to their duties and to actively engage in opportunities to strengthen their knowledge in response to changes in legislation, market conditions, governance requirements and emerging risks. 5.1 Core Competency Framework The Fund adopts the CIPFA Knowledge and Skills Framework, covering: • Pension legislation and regulation • Governance and oversight • Pension administration and communications • Accounting and auditing • Procurement, contract management and relationship management • Investment objectives, strategic asset allocation, • pooling and pooling performance management • risk management • Financial markets and products • Funding strategy and actuarial methods 6 5.2 Role-Specific Expectations Role Required Competence Pensions Committee Members Strategic decision-making, investments, funding, governance Committee Chair Advanced governance, leadership, and risk oversight Local Pension Board Members Compliance, oversight, regulatory frameworks Officers Technical expertise aligned to operational responsibilities Independent Person, Scheme Actuary etc. Technical expertise aligned to responsibilities 6. Induction and Minimum Standards A comprehensive induction programme is essential to ensure that newly appointed individuals quickly develop the knowledge and confidence required to fulfil their responsibilities effectively. The induction process is designed to provide an understanding of the Fund's governance structure, objectives, operational arrangements and risk environment. New appointees are expected to achieve an agreed baseline level of competence within six months of appointment and to demonstrate engagement with relevant learning activities, including completion of The Pensions Regulator's online learning resources where applicable. All new members and officers must: • Complete a structured induction programme • Achieve a baseline level of knowledge within six months • Complete relevant TPR online toolkit modules (or equivalent) Induction includes: • Fund structure and governance • Key policies and risks • LGPS regulatory framework • Investment and funding basics 7. Continuous Professional Development (CPD) The Fund recognises that maintaining competence requires ongoing learning and development beyond initial induction. Continuous Professional Development (CPD) enables individuals to remain informed about legislative developments, regulatory expectations, emerging risks, best practice guidance and changes affecting the LGPS landscape. CPD activities will be proportionate to the individual's role, level of responsibility and identified knowledge gaps. The Fund supports a flexible approach to learning, recognising that valuable development may be obtained through formal training events, professional reading, workshops, conferences, peer discussions and self-directed learning. 7 7.1 CPD Requirements Training is risk-based and role-specific: Role Minimum Annual CPD Committee Members 15 hours Committee Chair 20–25 hours Pension Board Members 15–20 hours Officers Role-specific (minimum 15 hours) Independent Person, Scheme Actuary etc. Role-specific (minimum 15 hours or higher if required by their professional body) 7.2 Training Delivery Methods Training may include: • Structured training sessions • Committee and Board briefings • External conferences, webinars and seminars • E-learning modules • Reading and research • Workshops and scenario-based training 8. Knowledge Assessment and Development Regular assessment of knowledge and competence is essential to ensure that training remains effective and targeted. The Fund will periodically evaluate the skills and knowledge of individuals involved in governance and management activities to identify areas of strength and opportunities for further development. Assessment outcomes will inform the preparation of personal development plans, which will establish clear learning objectives, address identified gaps and support continual improvement. The process will also enable the Fund to demonstrate compliance with regulatory expectations regarding knowledge and understanding. 8.1 Competency Assessment All individuals will undergo: • Initial competency assessment after induction • Annual skills and knowledge assessment • Periodic structured evaluations (e.g. questionnaires, toolkit scores) 8.2 Personal Development Plans Each individual will have: • A personal training plan • Identified knowledge gaps • Targeted development actions 8 9. Training Programme The Fund maintains a structured annual training programme which is designed to provide a balanced combination of core technical knowledge, governance awareness and emerging industry developments. The programme will be reviewed regularly to ensure it remains relevant to the Fund's strategic priorities, risk profile and regulatory environment. Training priorities will be influenced by legislative change, governance reviews, risk assessments, external guidance and the outcomes of competency assessments. This ensures that learning activities remain focused on areas that deliver the greatest value to the Fund and its stakeholders. 9.1 Core Areas • LGPS regulations and governance • Investment strategy and performance • Funding and actuarial valuations • Pension administration and operations • Risk management • Hillingdon policies (a list is included in Appendix A) 9.2 Enhanced “Fit for the Future” Topics • TPR General Code and ESOG • Cyber security and data governance • Climate risk and ESG (including TCFD) • McCloud remedy and regulatory developments • Fraud prevention and internal controls • Conflicts of interest (enhanced) • Diversity and decision-making bias • Emerging technologies and data analytics 10. Professionalisation and Accreditation The Fund supports the wider professionalisation agenda within the pensions industry and encourages individuals to pursue recognised qualifications, accreditations and structured learning pathways where appropriate. Professional qualifications can help enhance technical capability, support career development and contribute to improved governance outcomes. The Fund values both formal accreditation and practical experience and seeks to create an environment that encourages continuous learning and professional excellence. The Fund supports professional development through: • Completion of recognised training (e.g. CIPFA, PMI, TPR toolkit) • Encouragement of relevant professional qualifications • Participation in industry-wide training programmes 9 Where appropriate, the Fund will: • Monitor progress toward formal accreditation • Maintain records of achievements and certifications 11. Recording and Evidence The Fund will maintain comprehensive records of training and development activities to demonstrate compliance with regulatory expectations and support effective governance oversight. Training records provide evidence of attendance, completion of learning activities, assessment outcomes and CPD achievements. The maintenance of accurate records enables the Fund to monitor progress, identify trends, support audit requirements and provide assurance regarding competency levels across governance bodies. The Fund will maintain a central training record including: • Attendance at training events • Completed courses and certifications • CPD hours achieved • Assessment outcomes Individuals are responsible for: • Recording external learning activities • Providing evidence to Fund officers This ensures compliance with audit and regulatory expectations. 12. Reporting and Assurance The Fund is committed to maintaining transparent oversight of training and competency arrangements. Regular reporting enables governance bodies to assess whether knowledge and skills objectives are being achieved and whether any significant gaps exist that may impact governance effectiveness. Reporting will provide assurance that training activities have been undertaken, development plans are progressing appropriately and regulatory expectations relating to knowledge and understanding continue to be met. A short report will be presented at each Pension Committee and Pension Board meeting summarises the current training position. Additionally, a quarterly Training and Compliance Report will be presented to: • Pensions Committee • Local Pension Board This report will include: • CPD completion rates • Competency assessments • Identified skill gaps • Progress against training plans • Non-compliance or risks Training compliance will also be disclosed in the Fund’s Annual Report. 10 13. Non-Compliance and Escalation Participation in training and competency development is an important governance responsibility. Failure to undertake required learning activities may impact an individual's ability to fulfil their duties effectively and could potentially expose the Fund to increased governance or regulatory risk. Where requirements are not met, the Fund will seek to support individuals in addressing deficiencies through engagement, guidance and additional development opportunities. However, persistent or significant non-compliance may be escalated through the Fund's governance framework to ensure appropriate standards are maintained. Where training requirements are not met: • The issue will be raised with the individual • Escalation may be made to the Chair or senior officers • Persistent non-compliance may be formally reported • Appropriate action may be considered to protect governance standards such as pro- rata allowances, suspension of voting and, where appropriate, removal from the Board/Committee. • To ensure the Pension Committee and Pension Board increase their knowledge and skill level rapidly and are equipped to meet the additional responsibilities under fit For the future regulations, it is proposed that training sessions are set out over the initial year on a monthly basis (those months that there are no formal Committee meetings) in order to formally put in place a structure where Members can meet their training and knowledge requirements of 20 hours of Development a year. This is crucial as it will be reviewed as part of the Independent Governance Review that will take place in 2027. If Members are not meeting this requirement, they will need to be replaced. 14. Key Risks The Fund recognises that maintaining an appropriately skilled and knowledgeable governance structure is essential to achieving its strategic objectives. A range of risks may arise where training and development arrangements are ineffective, including poor decision- making, regulatory breaches, operational failures and reduced stakeholder confidence. Training-related risks are incorporated within the Fund's wider risk management framework and are subject to regular monitoring, review and mitigation where necessary. Risks include: • Loss of knowledge due to membership changes • Insufficient engagement with training • Inadequate training resources • Poor-quality training delivery • Failure to meet regulatory expectations These risks are monitored through the Fund’s risk management framework. 15. Costs The Fund regards expenditure on training and professional development as an investment in effective governance and sound decision-making. Sufficient resources will therefore be 11 allocated to support the delivery of this Policy and ensure that learning opportunities remain accessible and relevant. Training expenditure will be proportionate, represent value for money and be aligned with identified learning needs, competency requirements and governance objectives. 16. Monitoring and Review This Policy will be reviewed at least annually to ensure it remains current, effective and aligned with regulatory requirements, industry best practice and the Fund's evolving governance arrangements. Additional reviews may be undertaken where significant legislative changes, governance developments or organisational changes occur that could affect the operation of this Policy. This Policy will be: • Reviewed annually • Updated in response to: a. Regulatory changes b. Governance reviews c. Operational or strategic developments 17. Responsibility Clear accountability is essential to the effective implementation of this Policy. The Pensions Committee retains ultimate responsibility for approving the Policy and ensuring that adequate arrangements exist to support knowledge and skills development across the Fund. The Local Pension Board provides independent oversight of implementation and compliance, while officers are responsible for coordinating training activities, maintaining records, monitoring progress and reporting outcomes to the relevant governance bodies. Individual Committee and Board members, officers and advisors are responsible for ensuring they understand this Policy and attain the required Knowledge and Understanding to meet the requirements of this Policy. • The Pensions Committee is responsible for approving this Policy • The Local Pension Board monitors its implementation • Officers are responsible for delivery and administration • Individuals are responsible for meeting the Policy’s requirements 18. Further Information For further information, please contact: Pete Carpenter Director of Pensions, Treasury & Statutory Accounts 3E/02 Civic Centre, High Street Uxbridge UB8 1UW Email: PCarpenter@hillingdon.gov.uk

© Isio Group Limited/Isio Services Limited 2026. All rights reserved Document classification: Confidential 1 Hillingdon Pension Fund Training Plan for New LGPS Pension Committee & Pension Board Members This training plan is designed for members of the pensions committee, pension board and committee chair (and any substitutes), with various options depending on minimum hours requirements/skills gaps. It is structured to meet the annual CPD requirement for Committee Members of at least 15 hours p.a., Pension Board Members of 15-20 hours and Committee Chairs of 20-25 hours. Training Objectives • Ensure each committee/board member has a practical understanding of their role, the purpose of the LGPS, the governance framework and the key decisions reserved to the pensions committee/board. • For new members, provide a structured pathway to complete the minimum CPD hours within the first 12 months of appointment. • Support committee/board members to develop knowledge across pensions law, governance, risk, administration, funding, investment, member communications and disputes. • Use a blend of e-learning, briefings, reading, workshops and committee-specific learning to make the training relevant to committee members. • Create a transparent audit trail through personal development plans, learning logs and periodic review by the Committee Chair. • Support committee/board members to understand their responsibilities in relation to procurement, contract management and equality, diversity and inclusion, including how these areas influence decision- making, risk management and member outcomes. Initial Learning Needs Assessment Within the first month of appointment, each new member should complete a learning-needs assessment and prepare a personal development plan. This should identify prior experience, confidence levels and any immediate gaps in relation to the committee’s responsibilities. The output should be used to tailor the training pathway and agree any additional support needed, such as mentoring from a pensions officer or an experienced committee me mber. © Isio Group Limited/Isio Services Limited 2026. All rights reserved Document classification: Confidential 2 12-Month Training Plan Timing Training activity Delivery method Indicative CPD Month 1 Induction briefing covering general pensions basics, specific LGPS structure, committee terms of reference, decision-making powers, conflicts of interest, code of conduct and the role of officers, advisers and the local pension board, reminding individuals of their Fiduciary Duty (and to leave party politics outside the room). Structured, interactive training session and committee briefing, allowing for 2 way dialogue to enhance understanding 2.0 hours Months 1–2 Complete relevant introductory e-learning modules covering: • General pension scheme and LGPS specifics, including legislation, regulation and guidance. • Committee responsibilities • Governance, risk, internal controls and conflicts of interest. • Introduction to supporting bodies such as the Scheme Advisory Board, LGA, CIPFA, The Pensions Regulator, investment pools, professional advisers and peer networks, including the role each can play in supporting an LGPS pension board or committee. E-learning modules via Isio portal, with completion confirmation to be provided 3.0 hours Months 2–3 Scheme-specific reading pack, including an introductory guidance note: • Funding Strategy Statement • Investment Strategy Statement, • Responsible investment policy • Administration strategy, • Communications strategy, • Governance strategy • Terms of Reference – Pension Committee and Pension Board • Conflicts of Interest policy • Risk management policy • Annual report and accounts. Reading and research, hosted via Isio portal with confirmation that individuals have read to be provided. Printed copies can be made available, on request. 3.0 hours Month 3 Administration and member data session, including: • contribution monitoring, • data quality, • key performance indicators and how to challenge, • member communications, • pension scams, and • internal dispute resolution procedures. Workshop and scenario- based training 2.0 hours © Isio Group Limited/Isio Services Limited 2026. All rights reserved Document classification: Confidential 3 Months 4–6 Funding and actuarial training covering: • the triennial valuation, • actuarial assumptions, • employer contributions, • covenant considerations, • deficit recovery, • surplus, • employer exits, • the interaction between funding and investment strategy, • annual scheme accounting and audit process, and • key areas to challenge/ask critical questions. Structured training session and adviser briefing 2.0 hours Months 6–8 Investment training covering: • asset classes, • risk and return, • pooling, • responsible investment, • climate risk, • stewardship, • how investment performance is monitored by the committee, and • key areas to challenge/ask critical questions. External seminar, adviser briefing or workshop 2.0 hours Months 8–10 Governance, risk and breach reporting session, including • risk management and appetite, • internal controls, • audit findings, • cyber risk, • business continuity, • procurement and contract management, including oversight of advisers, administrators, investment managers and other key suppliers, • contract monitoring, service-level agreements, value for money and escalation of supplier performance issues, • EDI considerations in governance, communications, accessibility, decision-making and member experience, • risk register, and • escalation routes. Workshop and committee briefing 1.5 hours Months 10–12 Consolidation session using a realistic LGPS committee case study, followed by review of personal development plan, learning log and priorities for year two. Scenario-based training and reflective review 1.5 hours © Isio Group Limited/Isio Services Limited 2026. All rights reserved Document classification: Confidential 4 External Events and Support Bodies In addition to the above, board/committee members should be encouraged to attend relevant external LGPS training events, webinars, conferences, technical updates and peer-network sessions where these address identified learning needs or support the committee/board’s annual business plan. These events should be used both to build technical knowledge and to expose members to sector-wide developments, good practice and emerging risks. • Scheme Advisory Board updates, consultations, annual reports and good practice materials. • LGA/LGPC training, bulletins, technical guides and national LGPS updates. • CIPFA events and guidance on governance, audit, financial reporting and public sector pensions oversight. • The Pensions Regulator guidance, codes of practice and Public Service Toolkit learning. • Investment pool, investment adviser and actuarial adviser briefings on investment, funding, valuation, employer risk and market developments. • Legal, audit and administration provider updates on regulatory change, administration performance, internal controls, disputes and breach reporting. • Peer-network sessions with other LGPS funds to share good practice, lessons learned and practical approaches to pension board and committee effectiveness. Year 2 and Year 3 In addition to maintaining annual CPD requirements, Year 2 should focus on consolidation and applying learning to live committee and board practice. This should include targeted refreshers on investment monitoring, administration performance, risk management, procurement and contract oversight, value for money, EDI and accessibility, and any emerging regulatory or sector developments. Training should be shaped by the annual learning-needs assessment, which should be repeated at the end of each year, along with addressing any governance findings, planned service reviews or contract renewals and any new regulation/legislation. Year 3 should be aligned to the triennial valuation cycle and include a more detailed actuarial methods session ahead of key valuation decisions. This should cover the valuation timetable, data preparation and validation, funding methodology, treatment of assets and liabilities, discount rate and CPI assumptions, salary growth, longevity, prudence, likelihood of success, employer covenant, contribution rate setting, deficit recovery and surplus management, employer exits and stabilisation mechanisms, and the interaction between the Funding Strategy Statement, investment strategy and employer consultation. The session should be practical and challenge-focused, helping members understand the actuarial advice, the sensitivity of results to assumptions, and the questions they should ask/areas to challenge before approving valuation outputs and related funding policies. Evidence and Monitoring • Each member should maintain a personal learning log recording the date, topic, delivery method, provider, CPD time and key learning points. • Completion certificates, development records and assessment results from online learning should be retained as supporting evidence. © Isio Group Limited/Isio Services Limited 2026. All rights reserved Document classification: Confidential 5 • The governance officer should review progress quarterly and report completion levels to the Chair. • Members who are below the expected CPD trajectory should agree a catch-up plan, using a mix of e- learning, reading and targeted briefings. • At the end of year one, the committee/board should review whether they have achieved at least the minimum relevant CPD hours and identify priorities for the next annual training plan. Isio Services Ltd is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority FRN 922376. Document classification: Confidential 6

Appendix B – Competency Assessment Template London Borough of Hillingdon Pension Fund Knowledge & Skills Competency Assessment Name: ___________________________ Role: ___________________________ Committee / Board / Officer Group: ___________________________ Assessment Date: ___________________________ Assessor: ___________________________ Assessment Scale Rating Description 1 Limited awareness – significant development required 2 Basic understanding – requires support 3 Working knowledge – able to perform role effectively 4 Good knowledge – able to challenge and contribute confidently 5 Advanced expertise – able to lead, advise and mentor others Competency Assessment Matrix Knowledge Area Self- Assessment (1–5) Assessor Rating (1–5) Evidence / Comments Development Required? Pension Legislation and Regulation Governance & Oversight Pension Administration Accounting and Auditing Procurement, Contract Management and Relationship Management Investment Objectives and Strategic Asset Allocation Pooling and Pooling Performance Management Risk Management Financial Market and Products Funding Strategy and Actuarial Methods ESG & Climate Risk Cyber Security and Data Governance Fraud Prevention and Internal Control Conflict of Interest Management Diversity and Decision- Making Bias Emerging Technology and Data Bias TPR General Code Overall Assessment Overall Competency Rating: _______ Areas of Strength: Knowledge Gaps Identified: Recommended Training Actions: Personal Development Objectives Objective Target Completion Date Success Measure Sign-Off Individual: __________________ Date: __________ Assessor/Chair/Manager: __________________ Date: __________

Appendix C – CPD Recording Form London Borough of Hillingdon Pension Fund Continuous Professional Development (CPD) Record Name: ___________________________ Role: ___________________________ Reporting Year: ___________________________ Annual CPD Target Role Annual Target Hours Committee Member 15 Hours Committee Chair 20–25 Hours Pension Board Member 15–20 Hours Officer Minimum 15 Hours (or role-specific requirement) Independent Person, Scheme Actuary etc. Role-specific (minimum 15 hours or higher if required by their professional body) CPD Activity Log Date Training Activity Provider Learning Category Hours Evidence Retained (Y/N) Learning Categories Tick applicable categories: ☐ LGPS Regulations ☐ Governance ☐ Investments ☐ Funding & Actuarial ☐ Pension Administration ☐ Risk Management ☐ Cyber Security ☐ Data Governance ☐ ESG / Climate Risk ☐ Internal Controls ☐ Fraud Prevention ☐ Leadership & Decision Making ☐ Other: ______________________ Reflection on Learning Key Learning Obtained: How Will This Learning Be Applied? Annual Summary Requirement Hours Annual CPD Target Total CPD Achieved Outstanding Hours Declaration I confirm that the information provided above is accurate and that supporting evidence is available where required. Signed: ___________________________ Date: ___________________________

Appendix D – Training Attendance Register London Borough of Hillingdon Pension Fund Training Attendance Record Training Event Details Title of Training Event: Training Provider/Facilitator: Date: Time: Location / Platform: Training Topic(s): Attendance Register No. Name Role Signature / Attendance Confirmation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Training Evaluation Question Rating (1–5) Relevance to Role Quality of Content Quality of Delivery Achievement of Learning Objectives Overall Satisfaction Feedback Comments Follow-Up Actions Action Required Responsible Person Due Date Training Record Completed By Name: ___________________________ Position: ___________________________ Date: ___________________________ Signature: ___________________________

Training Policy (Appendix E) – Sanctions for Non-Compliance with Training Requirements Members of the Pension Committee, Pension Board and relevant officers are reminded that, under the Government's Fit for The Future reforms, administering authorities are expected to demonstrate high standards of governance, knowledge and competency. Failure to comply with the Fund's training requirements and/or attendance at meetings may undermine the ability of individuals to discharge their fiduciary and statutory responsibilities and could result in adverse findings during the Independent Governance Review. In line with the Fund's governance framework, persistent non-compliance may result in escalation to the Chair, Committee, Board or relevant administering authority and may lead to sanctions such as mandatory remedial training, restriction or suspension of voting rights, removal from specific governance responsibilities, withholding of special responsibility or attendance allowances where permitted, non-reappointment to the Pension Committee or Pension Board, or recommendation for replacement where the individual is unable or unwilling to meet the required competency standards. These measures are intended to protect the effectiveness of Fund governance and ensure compliance with evolving regulatory expectations. Non-compliance and/or persistent non-attendance may result in the Fund’s failure of the Independence Governance Review which is mandatorily and wis planned for early next year. The table below shows the non-compliance sanctions framework and responsible body for each stage of the sanction. Level Circumstance Potential Action Responsible Body 1. Informal Intervention Failure to attend a training session or maintain CPD records or attend meetings. Reminder issued and completion of outstanding training required within an agreed timeframe. Fund Officers 2. Formal Warning Repeated failure to meet training requirements, annual CPD target or attend meetings. Formal notification to the individual, Chair and Vice-Chair, with an agreed remedial action plan. Director of Pensions / Chair 3. Enhanced Oversight Continued non-compliance following a formal warning. Individual's compliance status reported to the Pension Committee and Local Pension Board through the quarterly Training and Compliance Report. Pension Committee / Pension Board 4. Restriction Failure to demonstrate the minimum knowledge and competency standards required for effective decision-making. Temporary suspension of voting rights, removal from specialist working groups, or restriction from undertaking specific governance responsibilities until training or attendance requirements are met. Pension Committee 5. Financial Consequences Persistent non-compliance without reasonable justification. Consideration of pro-rata reduction or withholding of attendance or special responsibility allowances, where permitted by the Council's constitutional arrangements and Members' Allowance Scheme. Appointing Authority 6. Non- Reappointment Failure to meet required competency standards or attend meetings over a sustained period. Individual will not be reappointed to the Pension Committee or Local Pension Board at the next appointment cycle. Full Council / Appointing Authority 7. Replacement Ongoing failure to achieve mandatory training requirements or attend meetings creating a governance risk for the Fund. Recommendation that the individual be replaced to ensure compliance with governance and competency expectations under the Fit for the Future framework. Full Council / Nominating Body Progress through the levels will vary with individual circumstances. For example: Failure to complete any CPD in a twelve-month period or failure to attend four consecutive meetings may result in moving swiftly from level 2 to level 7.

Training Policy Update Changes (2023 vs 2026) 1. Regulatory Framework OLD: Reference to CIPFA Framework and TPR Code of Practice 14; draft General Code mentioned. NEW: Updated to reflect TPR General Code (2024), ESOG requirements, and SAB guidance fully embedded. 2. Training Requirements OLD: Minimum 14 hours annual training requirement for all members. NEW: Role-based CPD framework introduced (15–25 hours depending on role) aligned to governance risk. 3. Competency Assessment OLD: Annual self-assessment of knowledge and understanding. NEW: Formal competency framework with structured assessment, skills matrix, and evidence-based evaluation. 4. Governance Integration OLD: Training described separately from governance framework. NEW: Training embedded into Effective System of Governance (ESOG), risk management and internal controls. 5. Training Scope OLD: Focus on traditional areas such as governance, investments, and administration. NEW: Expanded curriculum to include cyber security, ESG, TCFD, McCloud remedy, diversity, and emerging risks. 6. Professionalisation OLD: No formal requirement for qualifications or accreditation. NEW: Introduced Professionalisation expectations including TPR toolkit completion and recognised qualifications. 7. Recording & Evidence OLD: Basic training logs maintained by officers. NEW: Centralised training records with audit-ready evidence and regulatory compliance tracking. 8. Reporting OLD: Annual reporting of training activity to Committee. NEW: Formal Annual Training and Compliance Report including CPD, competency scores, and risk analysis reported to Committee and Board. 9. Policy Review OLD: Policy reviewed every three years. NEW: Policy reviewed annually with trigger-based updates for regulatory change. 10. Non-Compliance OLD: No clear escalation for failure to complete training. NEW: Formal escalation process introduced including reporting to Chair and governance risk mitigation.