Wrthi'n llwytho
Y penderfyniadau fel y mae cofnodion y cyngor yn eu cofnodi. Bydd crynodeb mewn iaith glir yn dilyn pan fydd wedi'i ysgrifennu.
RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following items of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information under category 3 of The Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Variation) (Wales) Order 2007).
No apologies for absence had been received for the meeting.
Members of the Committee declared interests as members of the Local Government Pensions Scheme. These are personal interests, not prejudicial interests in accordance with Paragraph 12(b) (iv) of the Members Code of Conduct 2016.
The Chair was authorised to sign the minutes of the Pensions and Investment Committee meeting held on 10th April 2025 as a correct record.
The Chair of the Pension Board, summarised key issues in the report: • Clarification on fiduciary duty: non-financial factors could be considered in investment decisions if no serious financial detriment was expected and members were likely to support the decision. • Discussion was held on how to gauge scheme members’ views, with recognition of the difficulty in consulting on single issues. • The Pension Fund Manager shared no concerns regarding the presentation of the Draft Annual Report, which the Board supported. • Future work plan included Good Governance Legislation, staff recruitment, McCloud, dashboards and the WPP’s response to pooling legislation. • Supported the draft breaches policy with no significant changes. • Reviewed the risk register, particularly the investment strategy statement, and found no need for changes. • Discussed WPP’s response to pooling legislation and the importance of Powys’ involvement. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Could the committee look at consulting members on their investment preferences. Clarification was sought as to whether a recommendation was made regarding this at the previous meeting. The Chair of the Pensions Board acknowledged the difficulty of consulting on single issues and said the Board had discussed the challenge. The Pension Fund Manager confirmed it was on his radar but noted limited capacity due to other priorities. The task was linked to the recruitment of a Governance and Communications Officer, which had not yet been successful. Was it difficult to recruit outside of the private market. The Pension Fund Manager confirmed that recruiting experienced LGPS professionals was challenging, especially at senior levels. Lower-grade administrative roles were easier to fill and train internally. Did a more attractive package need to be offered. The service would try re-advertising first before reassessing the offer. Committee noted the report.
The Chair of the Committee reported: • A meeting with the chair of the SAB regarding the “Fit for the Future” project. • Positive reflections on WPP’s direction. • Receipt of correspondence concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict; a briefing paper had been prepared for Cabinet. • Attendance at a successful WPP fund managers’ event in Cardiff. • Plans to attend the Strategic Forum in Watford to stay informed on sector developments. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Could officers provide an example of what the briefing paper would say about the Israel/ Gaza matter. The Pension Fund Manager offered assurance that the paper would be circulated after the meeting.
The Pension Fund Manager presented the report: • 2.2 A Governance conference was scheduled for January 2026 in Cardiff. Members interested in attending could contact the Pension Fund Manager. • 2.3 Progress on McCloud remedy implementation, with data updates ongoing and systems developed to support the process. A number of employers had been fully completed and work is continuing at pace on the rest. • 3.2 Government’s investment review supported WPP’s proposals. • 6.1 Risk register had been reviewed with no changes recommended. • The Pension Fund Manager added that the investment strategy statement and anticipated legislation on pooling were key considerations. Risk scores had fluctuated over the past year, rising during the initial and second consultations and stabilising following the government's response, which allowed the Wales Pension Partnership to continue. The Pension Fund Manager and the Director of Corporate Services agreed the current score was appropriate. Regarding fiduciary duty, the King's Counsel opinion and SAB summary provided helpful clarification, though further interpretation was expected. As such, no changes were recommended to the investment pillar of the risk register at this time. • 7.1 No new breaches had been identified. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received What would happen to Brunel, as the Government had not accepted their strategy. The funds in those pools would have to find other FCA regulated pools to join. There was a deadline to complete this by. Did this have relevance to the Welsh partnership? The Pension Fund Manager confirmed there was no indication that English pools were seeking to collaborate with WPP. The intention was for Welsh funds to remain within WPP. Thanks were shared with the Pensions Service for their work. This was recognised by the Director of Corporate Services and Section 151 Officer, and assurance was given that discussions were ongoing around supporting the Pension Fund Manager’s workload. Was the Pension Fund Manager leading Governance work stream. The Pension Fund Manager clarified that they were not the lead officer for the governance work stream. However, both the Pension Fund Manager and the Director of Corporate Services actively participated in the governance and engagement work stream, one of five established under Project Snowdon by the WPP. While not designated as lead officers, both were heavily involved in discussions and contributed meaningfully to the work stream’s progress. The Committee noted the report.
The breaches policy had been reviewed with no substantive changes. It had been endorsed by the Pension Board. Committee moved to approve the Breaches Policy.
• The Pension Fund Manager presented the report: • The report had two purposes: • 1. To seek the Committee’s approval of the revised Wales Pension Partnership (WPP) Business Plan 2025–2028, which included a new budget line for Project Snowdon. • 2. To gain the Committee’s support for the recommendations that would be submitted to Powys County Council for formal approval at its meeting on 10th July 2025. • The UK Government’s “Fit for the Future” consultation, aimed to: • Reform LGPS asset pooling arrangements. • Strengthen governance across pension funds. • Encourage greater local and UK-based investment. • The WPP’s response proposed the creation of a new FCA-regulated Investment Management Company (WPP IMC) that would allow the WPP to meet the Government’s expectations while retaining local control over investment strategy. • The revised business plan was largely unchanged from the version approved in March 2025, with the only addition being a £2.9 million budget for Project Snowdon in 2025–26. • Project Snowdon was the internal name for the steering group of senior officers from the eight Welsh administering authorities, tasked with implementing the new governance and operational arrangements. • The business plan and governance model had been developed with extensive legal input and collaboration across all Welsh funds. • Powys would remain an equal shareholder in the new company, despite being the smallest fund, ensuring equal voting rights and influence. • The Committee would retain responsibility for setting investment strategy and approving key documents such as the Articles of Association, Shareholder Agreement, and Investment Management Agreement. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Was the £2.9 million Project Snowdon budget split proportionally by fund size or equally per council? The Pension Fund Manager clarified that the cost of running the company would be split equally among the eight Welsh funds. Proportional costs would apply later when investments were transitioned. Was there any threat regarding governance, as the County Council delegated to the committee, and the committee were delegating to an investment company? Could the committee’s position in relation to full council be clarified? The Pension Fund Manager offered assurance that the change was consistent with national policy and other pools and contribution rates would still be set locally by the fund’s actuary. The Director of Corporate Services and Section 151 Officer added that legal advice had been sought and confirmed the governance model preserved local control. Assurance was provided that the Committee decided the strategy for investment. The investment management company would need to make available investments that meet the Committee’s strategy. The Chair of the Pensions Board added that this delegation aligned with national legislation, which was undergoing reform. Due to these changes, an investment management company needed to be established. As this marked a significant shift from the full Council’s 2017 decision to establish the Wales Pension Partnership (WPP), the matter required renewed Council approval. Assurance was given that Powys would be an equal shareholder in the WPP. Aon Member Kenneth Ettles added that the committee maintained the responsibility of signing off on several key documents for the new company. So really the full Council had to confirm its agreement to the new company. But in many ways, a lot of the key decisions around the key documentation would still reside within the committee. Portfolio Holder for Finance and Corporate Services was pleased to note the resource implication comment under point 10.1 and asked that it be emphasised when the report be presented to full council. The Pension Fund Manager added that it was the intention for all Councillors to receive a workshop on this report ahead of full Council. Was this a one-off approval from Powys County Council, and then delegated powers to the Pension Investment Committee for go-live? Yes, that was correct. The full Council would approve the initial step, and the Committee would handle the go-live stage. What were the timelines and when would it come to committee to go live? The Pension Fund Manager estimated the Go Live Report would be presented to the Committee in the second half of the year. Would the Committee have opportunity to review key documents before final sign-off. The Pension Fund Manager agreed and committed to keeping the Committee and Board engaged and informed. He acknowledged the importance of ownership and preparation for the final decision. The Committee moved to approve the report.
The Committee received and noted: • Progress against the WPP business plan. • Operator updates and investment performance. The Committee noted the report.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following items of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information under category 3 of The Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Variation) (Wales) Order 2007).
RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following items of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information under category 3 of The Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Variation) (Wales) Order 2007).
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.