Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
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).
Apologies were received from Committee member, Councillor David Thomas.
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 19th June 2025 as a correct record, subject to review of Item 13. • Councillor Kennerley requested clarification and amendment to the record of the minute for item 13. His reason for not supporting the recommendation was that, in his opinion, additional steps were required to make the decision. • Officer Jane Thomas proposed a review of the recording and any amendments if required to be ratified at the next meeting.
The Chair of the Committee made the following remarks: • Councillor Peter Lewis confirmed his appointment as Chair of the WPP Joint Governance Committee at the July meeting. • He reported ongoing work regarding correspondence received on areas of conflicts and upcoming attendance at the LAPF Awards and a data centre visit in Newport.
• The Funding Strategy Statement (FSS) was presented earlier than in previous valuation cycles due to significant changes in format and new guidance issued by the Scheme Advisory Board in January 2025. • The early presentation was intended to allow meaningful consultation with employers before the valuation was finalised. • The guidance had aimed to standardise FSS documents across funds to improve consistency and comparability for employers participating in multiple schemes. • Additional requirements had been introduced, but few existing ones were removed, resulting in a longer document. • A new section on employer engagement and consultation had been added (page 6), reflecting the emphasis on early and meaningful consultation. • A more detailed section on demographic assumptions had been included (page 9), covering assumptions such as life expectancy, retirement behaviour, and member movements. • The section linking the FSS to the Investment Strategy Statement (ISS) was expanded (page 13), highlighting the interdependence of funding and investment strategies while maintaining procedural separation to avoid circular updates. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Had changes impacted upon the asset allocation. Changes to the funding strategy statement had not directly impacted upon the asset allocation. The funding strategy and investment strategy were recognised as interconnected, but asset allocation decisions remained within the remit of the investment strategy statement, which was addressed separately. Had the independence between the Funding Strategy Statement and the triennial valuation been maintained. The independence between the Funding Strategy Statement and the triennial valuation had been maintained. The Funding Strategy Statement had served as the committee’s instruction to the actuary, guiding the valuation process while remaining distinct from it. The valuation was required to have regard to the Funding Strategy Statement, but the document itself was shaped by committee and employer input. Had the Funding Strategy Statement been time-bound to a three-year cycle. The Funding Strategy Statement was not strictly time-bound. Although it had typically been reviewed every three years in line with the valuation cycle, it was confirmed that the document could remain unchanged if no significant developments occurred. The revised format had included a section outlining circumstances under which the Funding Strategy Statement might be reviewed outside the triennial cycle. Had the assumptions used in the draft Funding Strategy Statement been updated for the 2025 valuation. The assumptions used in the draft Funding Strategy Statement had not yet been updated for the 2025 valuation. As the valuation process had still been in its early stages, with data received but calculations pending, the 2022 assumptions were retained for the draft. A further iteration of the document was scheduled for December, at which point updated assumptions would be incorporated. Had increased prudence been expected in the 2025 valuation. Increased prudence was expected in the 2025 valuation. Discussions had already taken place between the actuary and officers, and it was anticipated that the probability of funding success would be adjusted to reflect a more cautious approach. The precise extent of this adjustment had not yet been determined. Had the actuarial assumptions been finalised, or could they still be influenced by employer feedback. The actuarial assumptions had not yet been finalised and could still be influenced by employer feedback. The process was described as iterative, with initial assumptions refined following preliminary valuation results. The timing of the consultation was deliberately brought forward to allow meaningful input from employers before finalisation. Had the document cemented asset allocation decisions. The document had not cemented asset allocation decisions. It had instead clarified the relationship between funding and investment strategies, while allowing for flexibility and future review of asset allocation through the investment strategy process. What aspects of the document were open to consultation. The document was presented in draft form for consultation. Employers were invited to comment on any part of the funding strategy statement, particularly on elements affecting contribution rates, prudence levels, and surplus treatment. The consultation aimed to be meaningful and was scheduled early enough to allow employer feedback to influence the valuation process. What were employers expected to respond to. Employers were expected to respond to the principles and assumptions outlined in the funding strategy statement, including the treatment of surplus buffers, contribution stability, and actuarial assumptions. Feedback was particularly sought on areas that could affect employer contributions. Would the surplus buffer trigger contribution changes. The surplus buffer had been designed to manage contribution rates gradually. Surpluses above 105% would be applied to reduce contributions, but it is expected that the initial 5% surplus would be retained, ensuring a measured approach rather than a sudden change. Would the committee see employer feedback before final approval. Employer feedback was scheduled to be reviewed by the committee prior to final approval. A 28-day consultation period was planned, after which responses would be considered and incorporated into the final version of the funding strategy statement, to be presented in December. How would Powys County Council, as an employer, respond internally. Powys County Council’s response as an employer would be coordinated through its senior finance officers, including the Section 151 Officer.
The Pension Fund Manager, presented the report, highlighting the following: • McCloud remedy implementation and discretion applied to 2025 Annual Benefit Statements (ABS). • Few member queries received post-issue. • Pensions dashboard project on track; data quality tested. • No concerns from most recent Code of Practice review. • Cybersecurity policy flagged as priority for new governance officer. • Two new staff appointed; one post pending; one yet to recruit. • Risk and breaches registers reviewed; no issues raised. • National developments (Pensions Bill, Commission, SPa review) noted. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Had the McCloud remedy approach been appropriate. The approach taken to the McCloud remedy was deemed appropriate. Discretion was applied in accordance with statutory guidance and regulations. Where calculations had been possible, McCloud figures were included in annual benefit statements. Where not possible, members were informed and reassured that calculations would be completed if benefits were requested or taken. This approach had previously been considered by the Local Pension Board. Had the annual benefit statements been completed on time. The annual benefit statements were completed and issued by the statutory deadline of 31 August.
The Pension Fund Manager presented the report, highlighting the following: • The policy was reviewed and remained appropriate. • Minor updates had been made following Pension Board recommendations. • Paragraph 6.1 was amended to clarify that complaints must go through the two-stage Internal Disputes Resolution Procedure (IDRP) before referral to the Pensions Ombudsman. • Section 3.3 (regarding meeting complainants) was retained in its original form after review. • The team continued to receive compliments, which were logged and shared with staff. Issues Raised by the Committee Response Received How was an IDRP handled (Individual/committee etc). The IDRP process was explained as dependent on the origin of the decision being disputed and in accordance with the LGPS regulations Was the decision made by a sole adjudicator or a group. It was confirmed that the adjudicator at each stage may typically be a single officer, although some employers had chosen to convene a small panel of senior officers to review complex cases.
The Pension Fund Manager reported the cessation of Theatr Brycheiniog as an active employer following the departure of its last LGPS member. • A cessation valuation was completed in accordance with Regulation 64(2). • The valuation had confirmed a nil position, with no surplus or deficit. The committee noted the report.
Chris Hurst, Pension Fund Manager presented the report. The following was highlighted: • All eight Welsh administering authorities had approved the formation of the WPP Investment Management Company (IMCO). • The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) submission for IMCO authorisation was being prepared, with a tight timeline to meet the 31 March 2026 deadline. • The WPP was progressing well against its business plan and milestones. • The recent councillor workshop had received positive feedback and helped build understanding of Pension Fund and pooling developments. • Powys County Council would remain an equal shareholder in IMCO, retaining full strategic control over investment strategy for the Fund. • The committee would continue to set investment strategy locally, with IMCO implementing that strategy. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received How did the fund compare with others in terms of progress. It was confirmed that direct comparisons were difficult due to differing circumstances across pools. However, the Wales Pension Partnership (WPP) was progressing well, meeting its milestones and remaining on track to meet the government’s deadline of 31 March 2026 for the establishment of the Investment Management Company (IMCO). Did pooling affect the fund’s sovereignty over investment decisions. It was clarified that pooling had not affected the fund’s sovereignty. The committee retained responsibility for setting investment strategy, and decisions continued to be made at fund level.
Decision as recorded
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).
A report was presented which outlined various procedural updates and timelines relating to financial documentation. It adhered to relevant guidance and awaited some external inputs. The Committee discussed aspects of accessibility and transparency, and officers confirmed that the information had been made available through appropriate channels and had been shared with relevant bodies for broader analysis.
A report was presented to the Committee outlining considerations around engaging scheme members. The topic had been previously discussed and various options were explored, including both formal and informal approaches. While no legal obligation was identified, best practice guidance was referenced. The potential benefits and drawbacks of engagement were highlighted, and practical challenges were acknowledged. Questions were raised regarding the effectiveness of simple polling methods, response rates, and the experiences of other funds. It was noted that further evidence and resources would be required to undertake a full exercise. The committee voted on whether to proceed with a formal member consultation exercise. The proposal to proceed with a formal member engagement exercise was not passed.
A revised policy document was presented to the Committee for consideration after review of the draft version at the last meeting. The item followed previous discussions and incorporated feedback from earlier knowledge gathering exercises completed by the Committee. Updates were made to reflect current priorities and strengthen certain areas of focus. The policy was intended to support future engagement and alignment with wider partnerships. Questions were raised by Cllr Kennerley regarding the scope of the revisions. It was acknowledged that that the policy will be regularly reviewed to ensure it remains appropriate. Councillor Kennerley requested that his hesitancy and reluctance to endorse the policy be formally recorded, due to his outstanding questions. The committee voted on whether to approve the policy. Proposed by Cllr Arwel Jones, Seconded by Huw Williams. The policy was approved.
An update was provided to the Committee covering a range of matters linked to responsible investment. General observations were made about current fund structures and potential areas for future development. Examples were shared to illustrate possible directions of travel, and the Committee was encouraged to consider how its views might be reflected in broader discussions. Questions were raised about collaboration mechanisms, existing policies, and the availability of relevant networks. It was confirmed that engagement channels were in place and that feedback would be taken forward. The committee voted unanimously to approve the recommendations. Proposed by Cllr Arwel Jones, Seconded by Cllr Adam Kennerley.
A report was presented to the Committee outlining considerations for future investment strategy. Several options were explored, each with varying levels of risk and return. The discussion was informed by current market conditions and anticipated funding levels. Members raised questions about technical aspects and long-term implications, and a range of views were expressed regarding the fund’s risk appetite. It was agreed that further modelling and analysis would be brought to a future meeting before any decisions were made. The Committee was presented with an alternative methodology for currency hedging, designed to ensure its continued appropriateness and effectiveness in achieving the intended outcomes. Following consideration, the Committee agreed that the alternative approach should be implemented as and when deemed necessary.
A potential investment opportunity was brought to the Committee’s attention, with potential positive social and regional impact. Members discussed the merits and concerns and the Committee voted in favour of expressing interest, subject to two caveats: • Wider interest in the opportunity • That further understanding of the Welsh Government position be clarified [CH1] This was unanimously carried, proposed by Cllr Adam Kennerley and Seconded by Councillor Peter Lewis. [CH1]Need to consider this wording
A routine update was provided to the Committee, summarising recent developments and activity within the investments of the fund. A number of adjustments were noted, including changes to existing protections and transitions between investment vehicles. The Committee was informed of broader market movements and the implications for pooled assets. No formal decisions were required, but members were encouraged to reflect on the timing and prioritisation of future agenda items to ensure sufficient focus on strategic matters. It was acknowledged by officers and members that strategic items, such as the investment strategy review, required more time and space for discussion than had been available during the meeting. A suggestion was made to reorder future agendas, potentially placing exempt or strategic items earlier to ensure they receive adequate attention.
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.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.