Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED: The Committee did not approve the recommendations. The proposed changes to the Inter-Authority Agreement were considered and were not recommended to Council.
RESOLVED: The Committee noted the upcoming Committee dates.
The Chairman invited attendees to declare any potential conflicts of interest that they may have in relation to Clwyd Pension Fund (“the Fund”), other than those already recorded in the Fund’s register. There were no new declarations of interest.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: The Committee did not approve the recommendations. The proposed changes to the Inter-Authority Agreement were considered and were not recommended to Council.
The Chair introduced this item, highlighting that Committee and Board members have held a number of discussions including two detailed briefings on this topic previously. In line with UK government legislative changes around the future pooling requirements of LGPS assets, the Committee is asked to consider the legal documents governing how the Fund and other Welsh LGPS pension funds will meet these requirements. The documents for consideration are part of work undertaken to develop the Wales Pension Partnership (WPP) governance structure and establish a new FCA regulated company, WPP Investment Management Co. Ltd (WPP IM Co). The documents provided have also been provided to the other 7 Welsh pension fund committees and have been reviewed by monitoring officers. A review of governance arrangements and related legal documents is scheduled to take place in in 2027. Mr Latham explained that the officer recommendation is that the Committee recommends changes to the Inter-Authority Agreement to the Council. Parts of the Inter-Authority Agreement are referenced in the Council's constitution, so changes will also need to be recommended to the Council's Constitution and Democratic Services Committee on 24 March 2026. Mr Hibbert asked for clarification that while a recommendation has been made by officers, the Committee is not compelled to agree with the recommendation. Mr Latham confirmed this, and the Chair noted that not agreeing the recommendation could lead to the Fund being unable to participate fully in WPP’s governance arrangements. Cllr Ibbotson noted that the membership of the Joint Governance Committee (JGC) includes one representative from each Constituent Authority (CA), and one co-opted representative chosen by the CAs. He noted that co-opted members of pension fund committees may represent large or small employers or scheme members, and felt that it would be appropriate for the JGC to include a representative of each of those types, in order to protect all three types of stakeholder. He suggested returning to the partner funds to discuss these changes before approval. Mr Hibbert was concerned that the documents have been provided three weeks before the UK Government’s deadline which does not allow adequate time to make changes, and he did not feel that agreeing the documents on the basis of being reviewed at a later date would be acceptable. He stated that he had issues with 36 clauses within the IAA. Cllr Ibbotson was concerned that WPP IM Co is required to take into account investment policies of individual funds, but not to take account of policies set jointly by the JGC. Mr Wright clarified the JGC will agree a common responsible investment policy for all eight authorities. WPP IM Co will be consulted to provide their views on the policy to help ensure it is practical and implementable. Cllr Jones noted that if co-opted members have individual views, it is important to have a mechanism to ensure those are represented at JGC. She felt clarification was needed on how differing views at Committee are consolidated into one view for the Chair to represent at JGC. Cllr Bithell clarified that under the existing IAA, there is a single representative from each Committee on the JGC, in addition to a single co-opted member, and the proposals do not change this arrangement. Mr Wright stated that the Inter-Authority Agreement review aimed to adapt to new pooling arrangements imposed by the government. The review was not intended for general governance matters. The changes were solely to align the IAA with new pooling requirements, particularly the JGC's role as clients and shareholders of the new IMCO. He suggested it would be more suitable for the current arrangements for co-opted members to be addressed as part of a separate governance review such as the one planned for 12 months time. The recommendations were moved and seconded, but did not receive support from a majority of members. RESOLVED: The Committee did not approve the recommendations. The proposed changes to the Inter-Authority Agreement were considered and were not recommended to Council.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: The Committee noted the upcoming Committee dates.
The Chairman asked the Committee to note the following future Committee meetings: · 2:00pm on Wednesday 25 March 2026 · 9:30am on Wednesday 17 June 2026 RESOLVED: The Committee noted the upcoming Committee dates.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
The council hasn't recorded attendance for this meeting.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.