Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. One is written once the council publishes the minutes. The agenda and papers are below.
Apologies for absence have been received from committee member County Councillor Adam Kennerley, Cabinet Members County Councillors David Thomas, Pete Roberts and James Gibson-Watt from officers Mari Thomas and Dr Richard Jones and SWAP Officer Ian Halstead.
There were no declarations of interest from Members relating to items for consideration on the agenda.
The Committee resolved to authorise the Chair to sign the minutes of the meeting held on the 10th of September 2025 as a true reflection of the meeting. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Members queried the absence of officer responses in Minute 3 on page 6 of the meeting pack. When would the missing answers be provided. This would be checked by officers and the minutes of previous meetings would be amended as appropriate. Committee questioned the response stating that the Whistleblowing Policy and Annual Report would be presented to the committee annually in July. Committee requested that the latest annual report be brought forward as soon as possible, rather than waiting until July 2026. The Monitoring officer offered to take instruction from HR who review the policy and bring back instruction to the committee. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that they were responsible for the annual report and agreed to bring the figures to the committee. The Director of Corporate Services suggested sharing the current whistleblowing policy with committee members as a reference point and confirmed that the annual review would commence in July 2026, if required. Committee asked the officers to check whether an annual review of the whistleblowing policy had been undertaken by committee in the last 12 months.
Background: • The review focused on four key areas: risk identification, risk management, risk monitoring, and risk reporting. • Audit Wales had acknowledged several strengths in the Council’s approach, including: • Improvements made to the corporate risk management framework in 2023. • Strong leadership and a positive risk culture promoted by senior officers and the Governance and Audit Committee. • The articulation of a defined risk appetite. • The report had also identified areas for improvement, such as: • Inconsistent alignment of risks with the Council’s strategic objectives. • Limited horizon scanning for emerging risks. • A need for more specific and measurable control actions. • Inadequate demonstration of the effectiveness of risk controls. • Four formal recommendations had been made by Audit Wales: • Improve the risk identification process and enhance horizon scanning. • Strengthen the application and communication of risk appetite and tolerance. • Enhance monitoring and reporting through SMART control measures. • Evaluate the impact of changes made in 2023 to determine if intended benefits were being realised. • The Council had engaged constructively with Audit Wales during the review and had provided a management response to each recommendation. • Officers had confirmed that existing governance mechanisms, such as the Annual Governance Statement (AGS) and Financial Management Code (FM Code), would be used to monitor the implementation of the 2023 changes. Corporate Response: • Thanked Audit Wales for recognising progress made since 2023 in improving the Council’s risk management framework. • Highlighted that many risk-related activities were already happening but lacked formal documentation. • Emphasised the need to better evidence actions through meeting minutes and records. • Confirmed plans for a workshop to progress actions and a Cabinet session to finalise the updated risk appetite policy. • Explained that the Council would use existing review mechanisms to monitor effectiveness, rather than creating a new regime. • Stated that the Council would determine the most appropriate forum for reporting back on progress. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Questioned the reference to SMART objectives, noting they were not new and asking why they were not being consistently applied. Asked whether the issue stemmed from lack of awareness, training gaps, workload pressures, or staffing levels. Smart targets were not always appropriate, The SLT workshop would be used to review control measures, and identify any that could be made SMART. Queried what JCAD referred to. JCAD referred to the Council’s risk management system. Asked whether the risk workshop would be open to the Chair, Vice Chair, and other Council members. The workshop was operational and not appropriate for committee members to attend. The committee’s role lay in reviewing processes in place to gain assurance. Committee expressed concern that the deadline of 31 March 2026 might be too distant and could expose the Council to greater risk. What was the rationale for the deadline? Delivery and embedding the recommendations. Asked whether the review covered the entire risk management process or just the risk report. If the findings applied to impact assessments, how significant were the issues. Officers clarified that the Audit Wales review did focus on the entire risk management process. Impact assessments follow change in policy or decision, the same system would be followed, considering risk appetite etc. The Committee sought clarification on the management response which stated that not all controls were required to be SMART. Members asked which specific controls were exempt from this approach and who wins—management or the audit team. Everyone would win, because the council would have a more effective risk management approach. Would the Governance and Audit Committee be given the same visibility on the issues register as it had on the risk register. Officers confirmed that the issues register was maintained separately but agreed to explore options for providing the Governance and Audit Committee with greater visibility. Committee expressed concern about the low number of officers who had received risk management training. Assurance was given that staff had received training, but these statistics referred specifically to refresh training. Additionally, risk management training happened routinely throughout each services team meetings. Figures prior to 2024 were not available. Assurance was given that the training was regularly provided and well attended. The Chair queried the accuracy of the Management response to Recommendation 4, since the Committee did not regularly evaluate and report on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the Council’s risk management arrangements. Committee requested greater clarity around management response 4 and the role of the Governance and Audit Committee. Powys and Audit Wales Officers agreed to clarify recommendation four and find an appropriate way to update the committee of the revised wording. - ACTION In reference to Audit Wales' first recommendation, it was noted that while risks had received significant attention, it was unclear whether a formal process existed for identifying opportunities. The review had examined the Council’s overall risk management arrangements, which encompassed the entire system rather than solely the risk register. Impact assessments included a section for emerging risks and opportunities when there was a change in decision or policy. The same principles had applied in those cases, including consideration of risk appetite. However, whilst horizon scanning and the identification of emerging risks did occur informally, the process was not always clearly evidenced or documented. The management response had committed to strengthening this by improving alignment with strategic objectives, enhancing horizon scanning, and embedding these practices more formally through workshops and training. The intention was to ensure that opportunities, as well as risks, were consistently identified and linked to strategic planning going forward. Committee queried the accuracy of the statement in point 5 of the report that few officers had attended training since mid-2024. Audit Wales Officers confirmed that the report was factually correct regarding point 5, based on the data available at the time of writing the report. There was an action in the management response form to take this forward, and the committee would receive updates in the regulatory tracker. Powys Officers reiterated that the take up was low for the refresh training only. Committee reiterated concerns about Point 2 and Point 7 in the report. Noted that point 2 indicated a lack of clarity on how current activities supported the identification of emerging risks and opportunities, which was crucial for strategic decision-making. Expressed concern that if the value of these activities was unclear, their purpose should be questioned, and steps taken to clarify their impact. Regarding point 7, highlighted that a more thorough assessment of potential risk impacts would improve understanding of their severity. Questioned what actions were needed to achieve this and what the consequences might be if such assessments were not carried out. Officers advised that the management response addressed the concerns raised in points 2 and 7, particularly around strengthening horizon scanning and identifying opportunities. Noted that these activities take place in services, but its not evidenced and that aspect needs to be strengthened The Council had taken action to address these areas. While it was still early days, there was a clear plan in place to respond to the audit findings. Acknowledging Audit Wales’s suggestion that the Council adopt an issues log approach. The Committee suggested it would be beneficial to understand the associated policy, procedure, and operational management. It was requested that this be added to the forward work plan. - ACTION This was agreed by Officers. Committee noted Audit Wales’ comments regarding deep dives and confirmed the Committee would review its terms of reference and, in the spirit of continuous improvement, seek to enhance its approach—particularly in relation to risk appetite and tolerance in future deep dives.
Background: • The draft accounts were signed off by the Section 151 Officer on 30th June 2025, meeting the statutory deadline. • Members attended two preparatory seminars: • 11th July 2025 – overview of the draft accounts. • 16th October 2025 – review of the Audit Wales report and audit findings. • The Auditor General confirmed an intention to issue an unqualified opinion, subject to: • Receipt of the certified Letter of Representation. • Committee approval of the final accounts. • All misstatements identified during the audit were corrected (listed in Appendix 2 of the Auditor General’s report). • Two formal recommendations were made: • Review coding structure during the finance system transition. • Improve monitoring of system administrator activity. • Officers accepted both recommendations and confirmed actions were underway. • The committee was requested to authorise the Chair and the Section 151 Officer to sign the documents.
Background: • Audit Wales confirmed an intention to issue an unqualified opinion on the Council’s 2024–25 accounts. • The audit was supported by strong cooperation from the Council’s finance team. • No uncorrected misstatements were identified that would affect the audit opinion. • Corrected misstatements were listed in Appendix 2 of the Audit Wales report. • Two formal recommendations were made: 1. Review and improve the coding structure during the implementation of the new finance system to simplify future audits. 2. Introduce monitoring of system administrator activity across financial systems. • Audit Wales highlighted a twin risk for the 2025–26 accounts: 1. The transition to a new finance system (current system ends July 2026). 2. The Welsh Government’s ambition to bring forward the accounts sign-off deadline to September 2026. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Committee questioned whether the climate and nature emergency risks listed in the accounts required contextualisation. Concern was expressed that even if the Council did everything within its power, external global factors could still leave Powys exposed to those risks. The Statement of Accounts referenced the risk, but fuller context and detail were available in the Council’s risk register. The accounts were not the appropriate place for extended contextualisation. Committee queried the reported 0.46% drop in council tax collection rates. Was this figure within expectations or did it pose a longer-term concern. Officers explained that the drop was consistent with trends across Wales due to financial pressures on residents. Assurance was provided that the Council reviewed collection rates annually and had strengthened debt recovery processes. Residents were encouraged to contact the council for support. Committee acknowledged the twin risks of transitioning to a new finance system and the Welsh Government’s ambition to bring forward the accounts sign-off date to September 2026. Committee requested an assurance paper with a highlight level project outline plan outlining key dates and milestones to be presented to the Committee. ACTION Officers confirmed that a high-level project plan was already in development and that an assurance paper would be presented to the Committee in January 2026. The 2025–26 accounts would be processed in the old system, but it would also be available in the new finance system, which would support the audit of the accounts. Committee thanked the auditors for including a glossary of terms in the report. Committee approved the Statement of Accounts 2024-25.
Background: The Annual Governance Statement provided an overview of the Council’s governance arrangements and their effectiveness. • It demonstrated compliance with statutory obligations under the Local Government and Elections Act. • The Annual Governance Statement was supported by a comprehensive governance framework compiled by officers across the organisation. • The framework detailed processes, systems, and responsibilities underpinning transparency and continuous improvement. • The Annual Governance Statement was based on best practice from CIPFA and SOLACE and evaluated performance against seven core principles of good governance. • Assurance levels for each principle (A–G) were informed by input from officers, Cabinet, Corporate Leadership Team, Governance and Audit Committee feedback, and Audit Wales review. • The Committee had previously reviewed and endorsed the revised Annaul Governance Statement and framework at its July 2025 meeting. • The Committee was now asked to approve the Annual Governance Statement alongside the Statement of Accounts and Pension Fund Accounts. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Concerns and Queries raised regarding the Whistle blowing Report Committee members referred to pages 269 and 270 of the document and reiterated a concern that the last time the Committee had received the annual whistleblowing report was in January 2024, and if the next report were to be presented in July 2026, it would result in a gap of two and a half years. Officers confirmed they would be happy to revise the wording in the governance framework to reflect the Committee’s expectations regarding whistleblowing policy alignment and the inclusion of learning points in future reports. The section regarding potential future improvements should be strengthened to reflect the Committee’s previous agreement that the report should incorporate learning points and assurances that actions had been followed through. Committee were reminded that it had previously been agreed that the policy should be aligned with the whistleblowing code and suggested that this should be explicitly stated in the document. Concern was shared regarding the length of the Annual Governance Statement and similar reports. It was questioned whether the production of such lengthy documents represented value for money and suggested that Audit Wales should undertake a study to assess the cost-effectiveness of these reports. This was noted. The Committee agreed to approve and recommend the annual governance statement for adoption, subject to small drafting changes to areas around whistle blowing as mentioned above.
Background: • The draft accounts had been signed by the Section 151 Officer on 9th July 2025. • Accounts were circulated to committee members and discussed in seminars held on 11th July and 16th October 2025. • Audit Wales reviewed the accounts and confirmed an unqualified audit opinion. • One uncorrected misstatement was noted: an overstatement of private equity value by £1.1 million. The error fell below the materiality threshold and was not considered to impact the audit opinion. • The overstatement was due to the use of an incorrect opening balance from April 2023 instead of April 2024. The impact of the misstatement was to be addressed in the following year’s accounts. • No recommendations were made by Audit Wales regarding the Pension Fund.
Background: • The Committee was asked to consider the Letter of Representation and the audited Pension Fund Statement of Accounts for 2024–25. • The accounts were included in the Pension Fund Annual Report, scheduled for publication by 1 December 2025, following approval by the Pensions and Investment Committee on 27 November 2025. • A draft version of the accounts was signed by the Section 151 Officer on 9 July 2025 and circulated to Committee members. • Audit Wales planned to issue an unqualified opinion, noting one uncorrected misstatement of £1.1 million due to an error in private equity valuation. This was below the materiality threshold of £8.6 million and would be addressed in the following year’s accounts. • The Committee was informed that all other misstatements had been corrected. • No recommendations were made by Audit Wales regarding the Pension Fund accounts. • The Committee was asked to approve the accounts for publication, subject to the receipt of the signed Letter of Representation. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Committee queried whether the formation of a new investment management company ought to have been considered by the Governance and Audit Committee. Officers explained that the establishment of the investment management company was driven by changes in UK legislation affecting the Wales Pension Partnership (WPP). This development would not distance the Council further from its investments but would replace existing arrangements. Governance remained with the Pensions and Investment Committee and Full Council, and legal advice had confirmed that there was no requirement for the matter to come before the Governance and Audit Committee. Concern was raised over the high number of early retirements reported for 2024–2025. What constituted early retirement and did the trend pose operational challenges for the organisation. Officers clarified that early retirement referred to individuals choosing to retire before the standard age, typically from age 55. This resulted in a reduced pension rate for the individual and did not create a financial liability for the Council. However, early retirements could affect service delivery, particularly where key posts were vacated. Workforce planning was in place to mitigate risks. Committee sought an explanation for the significant additional employer contributions, particularly the £2.5 million figure attributed to Powys County Council. How were these contributions calculated and what did they represent. Officers explained that the additional employer contributions, such as the £2.5 million from Powys County Council, were payments towards historic pension fund deficits. Normal contributions were based on current membership and future service rates. Powys, being the largest employer in the fund, naturally contributed a higher amount. Clarification was requested on the cost-per-member figures shown on page 501 of the report. How had the figure of £396.15 been derived and did it accurately reflect the total cost of administering the fund. The cost-per-member figure was calculated by aggregating all administration, investment management, and governance costs, then dividing by the total number of fund members. The figure was included for transparency and accountability and was used as a national performance indicator to benchmark fund administration efficiency. The Committee approved the Pension Fund Accounts 2024-25.
Background: • The draft Annual Self-Assessment Report provided an overview of the Council’s performance against its Corporate and Strategic Equality Plan (CSEP) for the 2024–25 financial year. • The report demonstrated compliance with key statutory duties, including the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act, the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act, and the Equality Act. • Feedback from regulators, staff, residents, and partners informed the assessment, which used the Future Generations Commissioner’s Journey Checker to evaluate progress: • Objective 1 (Improving awareness of services and access) was rated as being more adventurous, indicating a move beyond business as usual. • Objective 2 (Promoting sustainable employment and training) was rated as owning our ambition, reflecting collaborative efforts and well-managed risk-taking. • Objective 3 (Tackling poverty and inequality) was rated as owning our ambition/leading the way, suggesting the Council was pioneering actions and setting an example for others. • The report also included equality monitoring and demonstrated the Council’s contributions to the seven national well-being goals. • An executive summary was to be published in both English and Welsh and promoted via social media and the Council’s website to ensure accessibility. • Formal endorsement of the report was sought ahead of its submission to Cabinet on 18 November for approval. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Was there an explicit connection between the corporate objectives outlined in the self-assessment and the Council’s integrated business planning process, particularly in relation to funding and measurable outputs. The Leader confirmed that the Council’s corporate objectives were explicitly linked to integrated business planning through a “golden thread” approach. This ensured that strategic ambitions were translated into service plans and individual staff objectives. Officers added that integrated business plans also incorporated workforce and financial planning, and that services were currently refreshing these plans for the next cycle. Committee praised the inclusion of demographic data and financial infographics, noting their usefulness in communicating with residents. It was suggested the report could be made more user-friendly and accessible to the public. The Leader supported the need for clearer public communication, highlighting ongoing efforts to explain Council services and spending through targeted messaging and infographics. The Committee approved the Draft Annual Corporate Self-Assessment 2024-25.
Background: • Committee received a presentation on Risk EDR0011, concerning the climate emergency declared by Powys County Council. • The risk was assessed with an inherent score of 25 and a residual score of 20, indicating a severe level of concern. • The presentation outlined the potential consequences of inaction and a series of controls and actions. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received Committee questioned what the projected costs were and whether the programme was affordable. Tackling climate change could lead to financial efficiencies, particularly through improved contract management and procurement. The forthcoming Route Map would present evidence of both financial and carbon savings. The Cabinet Member for a Greener Powys added that Powys could not fund the transition alone and was actively seeking external funding and partnerships to support delivery. Would any specific provisions be made in the upcoming budget for this item. Assurance was given that climate-related costs were embedded across service budgets and not presented as a standalone budget line. The risk narrative implied Powys could resolve the issue independently, without acknowledging global dependencies. Committee requested contextualisation to reflect that even full local compliance may not mitigate wider climate risks. The Cabinet Member for a Greener Powys agreed that global factors influenced the risk and emphasised that Powys must still act locally. Climate risk was recognised as a shared responsibility across all services and individuals. Committee proposed that Officers and the relevant Portfolio Holder consider how investment and expenditure related to the climate change emergency were accounted for within the Council’s budget and financial reporting. Committee requested that this be explored further and report back as part of future budget discussions. – ACTION Committee added that there should be milestones and measurable progress indicators to track delivery, output and value for money. This was agreed and the Portfolio Holder for a Greener Powys confirmed that a detailed Route Map and Climate and Nature Annual Report were in development to provide milestones and track progress. Were there examples of best practise or was there benchmarking available from other authorities in Wales, being shared to avoid duplication and maximise efficiency. The Portfolio Holder for a Greener Powys explained that collaboration took place through the Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA), which provided significant support. Highlighting the availability of climate-related training, which was well attended by authorities committed to the net zero agenda. Was the Net Zero Development Manager role temporary or ongoing and was the role funded through grants or core budget. Officers highlighted that a Climate and Nature Member Steering Group met regularly to consider the issue in full. Confirmed the group’s involvement in officer-led working groups developing detailed action plans with SMART objectives and embedded KPIs. Acknowledged that the work was evolving, with short-term plans in place, medium-term plans under development, and long-term opportunities still emerging. Noted the difficulty of capturing a complete picture at any single point in time. Suggested exploring offline how the Steering Group could better interact with the Audit Committee. Had town and community councils been engaged in a co-production model to support resilient communities. Could benefits realisation be linked to budget areas (e.g. schools, social care) to demonstrate climate-related impact. Committee reiterated the need for an evidence base and suggested using infographics to communicate how budget allocations support net zero goals.
Background: • The Capital Working Group had been re-established earlier in the summer of 2025. • Its initial focus was to comment on the Council’s draft policy concerning the farm estate, which had recently been subject to public consultation. • The remit of the group was subsequently broadened to align with the Governance and Audit Committee’s responsibility to scrutinise the Council’s financial affairs. • The group reviewed the draft policy in the context of the Council’s budgetary position, while remaining mindful that its role was not to set policy but to ensure robust governance and decision-making processes. • Members identified gaps in the evidence base, particularly regarding the success of tenancies and the estate’s core objective of supporting young people into farming careers. • The group proposed that a more comprehensive evidence base would support better decision-making, not only for potential disposals but also for the ongoing management and diversification of the estate. • The draft report set out a framework for strategic decision-making, aiming to move away from a reactive approach to a more forward-looking, structured model. • This approach was intended to align with the Council’s shift from annual budgeting to a five-year financial planning horizon. • The group noted that investment decisions, particularly in capital assets such as schools, required long-term planning—typically over a 15-year horizon. • The report recommended that future decisions regarding the farm estate be informed by a combination of strategic criteria and improved data, ensuring that governance and financial oversight were strengthened. Issues Raised by the Committee Responses Received The Leader confirmed that a high-level summary had been reviewed and it was proposed scheduling roundtable discussions with groups to explore next steps and invited the Chair and Vice Chair to participate. The Leader requested the paper be included as a live document within the policy review process, recognising its value and timeliness and suggested feeding the outcomes into the Farmers Estate Advisory Group. The importance of integrating the paper into ongoing discussions was emphasised. Officers clarified that the standard process involved the committee approving the paper and its recommendations, after which it would be submitted to Cabinet alongside the service area’s consultation report and committee could take advice on where to route the paper most appropriately. Committee approved the Capital Working Group Report.
Committee noted the forward work programme.
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.