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 that in accordance with Section 106 [8] Local Government Pension Scheme [LGPS] Regulations 2013 the Board goes into the confidential agenda with the public and press being excluded as some of the information may relate to financial or business affairs of a particular person or organisation.
Apologies had been received from Ian Jones.
There were no declarations of interest relating to the items to be discussed on the agenda.
The Board moved to approve the Chair to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on the 21st May 2025 as a true record.
The Chair briefly recapped several key topics from the May meeting, including: · Operational issues, which were due to be revisited in the current meeting. · Legislative developments, with further updates expected. · The annual reports, which had been prepared and were progressing through the appropriate channels. · The risk register, which had previously focused on investment risks, with administrative risks now under review. · Draft compliments and complaints, breaches, and WPP preparations, which had since progressed successfully.
The Chair provided a summary of the Committee meeting held on 19th June 2025: · Recruitment: This was acknowledged and expected to be revisited later in the Board meeting. · Administration and Governance: The Committee had similar discussions to the Board on these matters. · Fit for the Future and WPP Proposal: This was the main focus of the meeting. The Committee held a detailed discussion on the Wales Pension Partnership’s future structure, which had since been approved by full Council. · Investment Strategy and Responsible Investment: Members discussed setting net zero targets. While there was recognition of shifting global trends, the Committee felt it was important to establish targets to maintain momentum and stakeholder confidence. · Equity Protection: This was raised and expected to be revisited later in the year. · Quarterly Monitoring Reports: Administration performance was to be reviewed at the Board meeting. Employer performance was deemed satisfactory.
• The Pension Fund Manager presented the Operational and Administration Report covering the period from 1 April to 30 June 2025. • It was noted that the report had been provided in its previous format due to time constraints, although when resources allow, future reports will be developed to provide annual comparisons, as previously requested by the Board. • The financial data presented showed no unexpected variances, although some figures were higher than in previous months due to fluctuations in transfers and benefits payable. • A reduction in membership numbers was noted, attributed to the ongoing work by the administration team to consolidate multiple employment records into single entries. An example provided was of school-based staff with multiple part-time roles. The consolidation did not affect liabilities or benefits but improved data management efficiency. Questions Raised Responses Received Was the trend of payments exceeding income in Table 2.1 a concern for the Fund’s cash flow? It was clarified that while the administration side showed a negative cash flow, the Fund overall remained cash flow positive due to investment income. The Fund was expected to enter a cash flow negative position in the medium term, a trend common across LGPS funds. The Chair added that the upcoming triennial valuation might result in reduced employer contributions, potentially accelerating the tipping point. The Board was reminded that a cash flow modelling strategy had been approved by the Committee in 2024 to monitor and manage this risk. Could a comment be added under 2.1 to say the overall position was positive? This would be considered when developing reports. Board noted the report.
• The Pension Fund Manager provided a summary of recent legislative developments and governance matters, including the introduction of the Pension Schemes Bill to Parliament in June 2025, which aimed to strengthen pooling arrangements and governance across LGPS funds. • The McCloud Remedy was discussed in detail. The complexities involved in recalculating benefits for affected members and the disparity between statutory guidance and legislation was explained. While guidance suggested completion by 31 August 2025, the regulations allowed for a discretionary extension to 2026. The Local Government Association had advised that any discretion exercised must be discussed by the Pension Board and approved by the Pension Committee before the deadline. • The Fund was considering applying this discretion regarding the McCloud Remedy for certain categories of members, particularly those with complex cases such as divorce settlements. A formal decision would be made in consultation with the administration manager and brought to the Committee in early September 2025. The Board acknowledged the importance of recording this discussion to demonstrate scrutiny and oversight. • Phase 1 of the Pension Dashboards Programme had been completed successfully, with low data error rates and satisfactory matching criteria. Phase 2 was scheduled for August/September 2025, with full connection into the Dashboard ecosystem expected by October 2025. The Pension Fund Manager was confident in meeting the timeline but cautioned that the volume of queries post-launch remained an unknown risk. • The triennial valuation process was underway. Data had been submitted to the actuary, and initial meetings had taken place. The Fund was awaiting feedback and anticipated further discussions regarding contribution rates and funding strategy. Questions Raised Responses Received Concern was raised regarding the application of any discretions and the Powys Fund being an outlier. Had other LGPS funds been contacted to ensure a common view? Assurance was provided that Powys was not acting in isolation. The approach being considered was consistent with discussions held at the Welsh Pensions Officer Group, and most funds were adopting similar strategies. Concern was raised regarding whether the team had sufficient capacity to meet the government’s timescales for McCloud implementation. The administration team had made significant progress and was now processing over 100% of its caseload regularly, indicating backlog clearance. However, it was acknowledged that meeting the government's timescales remained challenging and that additional recruitment was underway to support delivery. Concern was raised about the lack of senior-level support for the Pension Fund Manager and the impact on delivery, particularly in communications. The Pension Fund Manager agreed and noted that some responsibilities had fallen to senior team members. It was confirmed that steps were being taken to strengthen the team, including recruitment for three new posts. It was a concern for the Fund to ensure the data was correct and communications to members appropriate. It was acknowledged that while Powys was meeting statutory requirements, it had not yet reached the level of proactive communication seen in other funds, due to resourcing issues. The importance of modernising communications was emphasised, and it was confirmed that this was a priority area for development. Concern was shared about the short timescale for applying any discretions and need for clear governance steps. Clarification was sought on how the Board would be informed and how the Committee would formally approve the use of discretion. A proposed process was outlined: Pension Fund Manager would work with the administration manager to formalise a decision, consult the Board informally or via an online meeting, and seek retrospective approval from the Committee at its meeting on 3rd September 2025. It was confirmed that the Committee’s approval was the key requirement, with the Board providing scrutiny. The decision would be documented and included in future Board papers. It was suggested that this discussion be formally recorded to demonstrate that the Board had considered the matter, even if final decisions were made outside the meeting. It was confirmed that the discussion at the meeting would be formally recorded to demonstrate that the Board had considered the matter. The Board noted the contents of the report.
• The Pension Fund Manager presented an update on the Wales Pension Partnership (WPP), focusing on the progress of Project Snowdon. The WPP had submitted a business case to the UK Government in February 2025, which received government support in April. This endorsement facilitated smoother discussions at Council and Committee level. • The Committee had approved the revised business plan and budget, including the creation of a new FCA-authorised Investment Management Company (IMCO). Powys County Council subsequently approved the recommendations at its meeting on 10 July 2025. The next steps included the establishment of the company and submission of the FCA application by the end of September 2025. • The Chair added that a seminar had been held on 4 July for all Council members, where the proposals were presented. This session was instrumental in securing support from elected members. Challenges ahead included tight timescales, recruitment to senior posts within the IMCo, and the pooling of legacy assets such as hedge funds. • The Board was reassured that legal advice had been sought independently and that governance arrangements were being developed in line with national legislation. It was confirmed that Powys would retain equal shareholder status within the WPP, despite being the smallest fund. Questions Raised Responses Received Would there be a separate legal adviser for the new Investment Management Company to ensure governance compliance? It was confirmed that legal advice was being provided independently throughout the process to avoid conflicts of interest. Monitoring officers from all eight authorities had also been involved. Where had the advice come from to set this up? Legal support is being provided by the Wales Pension Partnership’s legal advisors and monitoring officers of the Constituent Authorities. The Board noted the report.
• The Pension Fund Manager presented the updated Risk Register, noting that there had been minimal changes since the last review. The Board was reminded that the register covered administrative, governance, and investment risks, and was aligned with the expectations of the Pensions Regulator’s General Code of Practice. • Risk ADMIN0002 was highlighted. The Pension Fund Manager explained that officers intended to develop a Fund-specific cyber security policy within the calendar year. Assurance had been received from system providers regarding the robustness of their protocols, and the Fund was comfortable with the current arrangements. The Chair noted the difficulty in separating Fund and Council IT operations and suggested revisiting the idea for corporate IT to commission a security operations centre (SOC). • The Board noted the report, reviewed all four pillars of the Risk Register, and generally approved the Administrative pillar Questions Raised Responses Received Was it possible to get everything to a green current rating on the risk register? Were some of the risks being lived with? Some risks were tolerated due to their nature and potential impact. The incoming governance officer would undertake a deep dive into the register to identify areas for improvement. Had there been progress on developing a Fund-specific cyber security policy? This was planned for the current calendar year. Assurances had been received from system providers, and the Pension Fund Manager was comfortable with current arrangements. Should Risk ADMIN0006 be reevaluated due to increased life expectancy? This had been considered as part of the valuation process, and the actuary had incorporated updated assumptions accordingly.
• The Pension Fund Manager presented the updated Conflicts of Interest Policy for review. The policy had undergone a periodic review in line with the Regulator’s General Code of Practice and remained largely unchanged, with only minor grammatical and formatting amendments. • The policy continued to be consistent with other LGPS funds, but was tailored specifically to the Powys Pension Fund, complementing the Council’s broader policy framework. Subject to the Board’s endorsement, the policy would be taken to the Pensions and Investment Committee in September for formal approval. • Board members welcomed the use of tracked changes in presenting updated documents and agreed that the policy, as amended, remained appropriate and relevant. Questions Raised Responses Received A grammatic error was found on page 95 of the report. ‘and’ needed amending to ‘an’. This was agreed. Was the policy consistent with other funds? Yes, it was consistent with neighbouring funds and aligned with best practice. Board Members thanked the Pension Fund Manager for the use of tracked changes as it made it easier to follow updates made to the document. The Board agreed to propose the policy to the Pensions and Investment Committee.
• It was confirmed that there were no updates required under the standing items. • It was suggested that the Board consider noting any decisions relating to the McCloud Remedy under the Breaches Register at the next meeting. While not reportable to the Regulator, such a note would demonstrate transparency and good governance. • The Board agreed to revisit this at the October meeting once the implementation approach had been finalised.
The next Board meeting was scheduled for the 14th of October 2025 (subsequently amended to 23rd of October 2025).
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED that in accordance with Section 106 [8] Local Government Pension Scheme [LGPS] Regulations 2013 the Board goes into the confidential agenda with the public and press being excluded as some of the information may relate to financial or business affairs of a particular person or organisation.
RESOLVED that in accordance with Section 106 [8] Local Government Pension Scheme [LGPS] Regulations 2013 the Board goes into the confidential agenda with the public and press being excluded as some of the information may relate to financial or business affairs of a particular person or organisation.
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.
Dyw'r cyngor ddim wedi cofnodi presenoldeb ar gyfer y cyfarfod hwn.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.