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 item 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). The Monitoring Officer has determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applies to the following item. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). These factors in his view outweigh the public interest in disclosing this information. Members are asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting.
Apologies for absence were received from: Committee Member County Councillors: Chris Walsh. From Cabinet Member County Councillors Sandra Davies, James Gibson-Watt and Jackie Charlton. Officers: Jane Thomas, Dr Richard Jones and James Chappelle. And SWAP Officers Ian Halstead and Kevin Price.
There were no declarations of interest from Members relating to items to be considered on the agenda.
• Committee noted that further information had been expected regarding the governance of the Welsh Pension Partnership’s investment into Bute Energy, which had not yet been received. It was queried how such requests and actions were monitored to ensure they were followed up. · It was also highlighted that Action 4 in the minutes had recorded that officers would report back at the next meeting, but no corresponding agenda item was included. In response, the Chair asked Democratic Services to follow up with the relevant officers and to ensure that all action points were progressed and reported back to the Committee in a timely manner, which was agreed. The Chair was authorised to sign the minutes of the previous meeting, held on 22/05/2026 as a correct record.
• The letter from the Auditor General had been issued against a backdrop of a deteriorating position across local government in Wales in relation to the production of statutory accounts. Performance across Wales had declined, noting that only 12 councils had met the deadline of 30 June 2025 for draft accounts, and just 9 of the 22 councils had certified their accounts by 31 October 2025. • In contrast, Powys County Council had been performing strongly, having met the relevant statutory deadlines and having produced timely, accurate and good quality accounts. This strong performance was attributed to the commitment of the finance team and to positive and effective working relationships with the external auditors. • However, it was noted that there remained areas where the Council would need to continue to focus, particularly in relation to improving the quality of working papers provided for audit and the timeliness of responses to audit queries. • The Committee was advised that statutory deadlines would become more stringent from the 2025/26 audit year, with draft accounts required by 30 June and audit completion required by 30 September. • The Council also faced additional pressures, including the implementation of a new finance system and ongoing workforce and capacity challenges within the finance function. • It was concluded that, although Powys was currently performing well when compared nationally, the next audit cycles would be particularly important in maintaining this position given the wider challenges across Wales. Officers provided assurance that work would be ongoing to continue the high standard. Committee noted the report.
• The presenting officer advised that members would have had the opportunity to review the report and outlined that the year had been very busy, with the team having made good progress against both internal targets and expectations. • A significant proportion of the team’s work involved proactive data matching, review activity, and National Fraud Initiative (NFI) work. • The team worked closely with a range of external partners and enforcement agencies, including the police, the Department for Work and Pensions, immigration services, and others where there was a shared interest. This collaborative and preventative approach was a key element of the work, ensuring that fraud and error were identified and addressed effectively. • Overall, the report reflected a positive end-of-year position, demonstrating that the counter-fraud function had operated effectively and continued to deliver against its objectives. Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Committee sought clarification on the term “employee cases”, questioning whether it included unsubstantiated allegations and how employees were managed during investigations. Officers explained that the term covered the full lifecycle of a case (from allegation to outcome), used neutral terminology, and avoided implying guilt. Employee cases were managed on a case-by-case basis, with risk assessments, HR involvement, and suspension only used where necessary. Cases were prioritised, although timescales could depend on external partners. Committee raised concerns about the recovery of approximately £150k from four cases, questioning how this aligned with the statement that there were no significant control failures. Members were advised that the cases identified included Universal Credit, Council Tax Reduction, Social Care and Council Tax Premium. Universal Credit fell under the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), although the Council worked closely with the DWP and, in some cases, may have identified overpayments on its behalf. It was noted that controls and assurance measures were in place across all areas. The DWP carried out verification checks for Universal Credit, while the Council maintained controls within its own services, including risk assessments, reviews and direct payment audits within Social Care. The Committee was informed that lessons were learned from each case and that opportunities to strengthen processes were continually reviewed. This included considering clearer wording within financial agreements to ensure responsibilities were fully understood. Whilst no significant control failures had been identified, officers acknowledged that fraud and error could still occur despite robust controls. The Council remained committed to investigating cases, identifying any weaknesses and implementing improvements where appropriate to reduce future opportunities for fraud and error. Collaboration with SWAP and other audit partners also supported continuous improvement and shared learning. Members expressed concern that, given a single fraud case with a potential value of £88k, it seemed contradictory to conclude that the existing control framework was adequate and did not require improvement. It was questioned why no enhancements to controls were considered necessary in light of the significant financial value involved and suggested that further explanation would have been helpful to demonstrate why the current arrangements were deemed sufficient. Officers advised that, although the case involved Social Care, it had not resulted from a significant control failure. Due to data protection requirements, further details could not be provided. Officers confirmed that, had a significant control weakness been identified, controls would have been reviewed and strengthened where necessary. Portfolio Holder for Finance and Corporate Transformation commended the team, highlighting that the report demonstrated effective counter-fraud arrangements and consistent recovery levels. Audit Wales officers confirmed that the Council’s counter-fraud arrangements would be reviewed as part of its audit programme. Committee noted the report.
• The Annual Corporate Self-Assessment was a statutory requirement under the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 and the Equality Act 2010. • The purpose of the report was to assess how effectively the Council was performing, including whether it was exercising its functions effectively, using resources economically and efficiently, and maintaining robust governance arrangements. • The report followed a robust and structured process, involving service-level self-assessments, challenge sessions with directors and portfolio holders, corporate consolidation of evidence, and review by senior leadership team and Cabinet. • It was emphasised that the assessment was evidence-based, drawing on performance data, feedback from residents, staff and partners, and other internal and external sources. • The report highlighted that overall good progress had been made against the Council’s three wellbeing objectives, with performance assessed as “owning our ambition”. Key areas of progress included digital development, community engagement, service innovation, housing, social care, and economic development. • Governance and oversight arrangements had been strengthened, and progress had been made in workforce planning, recruitment, leadership development and digital transformation. • Ongoing challenges were acknowledged, including financial pressures, increasing demand for services, workforce and capacity constraints, performance issues in some areas (such as education), and short-term pressures arising from transformation and system changes. • Committee was advised that the report would be returned to Cabinet for final approval, and that the Committee’s role was to consider and endorse the report as part of the governance process. Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. As a self-assessment, the report largely reflected the Council’s own view of its performance, and Committee queried how real-life examples (such as workforce planning issues in waste and recycling) were reflected. Workforce planning arrangements were well-established and recognised as good practice, although it was acknowledged that operational challenges could arise in specific service areas. Transformation work in HTR was ongoing and would be considered in more detail at a future meeting. Could the report include practical examples or case studies to better demonstrate how initiatives, such as sustainable Powys, were being applied in practice. This point was accepted and it was advised that, while the main report was necessarily detailed and complex, there was scope to provide clearer examples through an easy-read or supplementary version. Portfolio Holder for Finance and Corporate Transformation explained that Sustainable Powys was deeply embedded into the work of the Council and any report which signified a policy change or new initiative contained a section on Sustainable Powys. Could the easy read version in future be linked to the overall document for ease of access. This was agreed. Committee raised concerns regarding the section on capital, suggesting that references to “reprofiling” lacked sufficient explanation and could be misleading without additional context. Officers responded that the figures presented were accurate and reflected the nature of capital programmes, which operate over multiple years and are regularly updated. It was suggested that further detail would be available in the capital outturn report and related reports, which would be cross-referenced. Committee raised broader concerns about governance, transparency and accessibility, suggesting that the document was complex for both members and the public. The development of an easy-read summary and more searchable or digital formats was proposed. Committee also commented on the tone of the report, suggesting that there should be a clear and honest reflection of areas for improvement, particularly in relation to engagement. The Leader emphasised that the report aimed to provide an honest and balanced assessment, highlighting both strengths and challenges, and confirmed that feedback would be considered to improve future versions. The Committee noted that a Panel Performance Assessment (PPA) would provide an external perspective, and it was confirmed that this would be reported to the Committee at a future meeting. The Committee endorsed the Annual Corporate Self-Assessment Report 2025-26.
• The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Corporate Transformation introduced the Annual Governance Statement (AGS) as the Council’s annual assurance statement on the effectiveness of its governance, risk management and internal control arrangements. • It was explained that the AGS provided a review of governance for the 2025/26 financial year, including an overall assurance assessment against the seven recognised governance principles set out in national guidance. • Members were advised that the Council’s overall assurance level had been assessed as “reasonable”, indicating that risks were generally being managed effectively, although some processes required further strengthening. • The report identified a number of new improvement actions, including streamlining the AGS process, obtaining internal audit information earlier, developing the Impact Assessment Hub, and introducing an information request workflow system. • The process for producing the AGS was described as organisationally comprehensive, involving an authority-wide review, consideration by the senior leadership team and Cabinet, and scrutiny by the Committee before final approval alongside the audited statement of accounts. • The Committee was advised that it was being asked to endorse the AGS at this stage, ahead of formal approval later in the year. Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Committee raised concerns that the AGS did not explicitly reference the capital programme or the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), despite these being emphasised within the governance framework. It was felt important that the Capital Programme was recognised as an action plan for sustainability. Officers acknowledged that while these elements were covered in other documents, there was scope to strengthen the link between governance documents, and consideration would be given to making those connections clearer within the AGS. The Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services and Finance noted that there was no statutory requirement for the Annual Governance Statement (AGS) to include commentary on the Medium-Term Financial Strategy or the five-year Capital Programme. Officers explained that these were long-term planning documents, whereas the AGS focused on governance arrangements over a 12-month period. It was acknowledged that concerns had been raised; however, officers considered that detailed discussion of the Medium-Term Financial Strategy and Capital Programme was more appropriately addressed elsewhere. The Chief Executive Officer added that the issue arose from considering one element of the governance framework in isolation. It was advised that, when read alongside the related documentation, the framework requirements were met. Whilst there was agreement that the AGS might not be the most appropriate document for detailed commentary, it was suggested that stronger cross-referencing between documents could be introduced to demonstrate more clearly how the framework requirements were being fulfilled and to address the concerns raised by Committee. Members noted that the report referred to risks and the Council’s processes for assessing them, but suggested that greater recognition should also be given to current issues being actively managed by the Council. Reference was made to previous discussions regarding the absence of a formal issues log alongside the risk register. It was acknowledged that officers responded effectively to emerging issues, and it was suggested that stronger links between related documents, or a simple visual guide illustrating those connections, could help readers better understand the Council’s governance arrangements and the positive work being undertaken by officers. Officers explained that risks were managed through the Council-wide risk register using the JCAD system. Current issues were typically identified and managed at service level, with oversight provided by the Senior Leadership Team and Corporate Leadership Team. Cabinet and Members were also kept informed as issues arose. It was noted that existing reporting arrangements ensured issues were appropriately managed and not overlooked. Officers agreed to consider whether the AGS could provide greater clarity on how issues were managed within the Council’s governance framework. Members queried whether there was a mechanism for bringing together significant operational issues at a strategic level, similar to the way strategic risks were escalated and recorded within the Council’s strategic risk register. Members sought reassurance that key issues being managed by Cabinet and the Corporate Leadership Team were captured and monitored collectively. Officers advised that live issues were monitored through weekly Corporate Leadership Team and Senior Leadership Team meetings, with actions and progress recorded in meeting minutes and action logs. Unlike risks, which were recorded in a formal register, issues were managed in real time, reviewed regularly, and escalated as necessary. This approach ensured that emerging issues were actively tracked, actions were followed up, and any changes in circumstances were promptly addressed. Committee welcomed the assurance that live issues were actively tracked through established governance arrangements and suggested that consideration be given to including a brief explanation of this issues management approach within the Annual Governance Statement to provide additional assurance. Members also supported proposals to strengthen links between governance documents and to explore the development of a simple guide or roadmap showing how the various documents related to one another, thereby improving accessibility and understanding. Officers agreed to make improvements to connectivity, clarity and presentation of the AGS ahead of final approval. The Committee endorsed the Annual Governance Statement to proceed to the next stage in the governance process, subject to its views being taken into account to improve the transparency and accessibility of the document.
• The Capital Working Group had submitted comments in response to the Council’s consultation on the farm estates policy. The Leader had recognised this contribution and had requested that the Working Group’s comments be forwarded to the relevant Estates Working Group of the Council. • This work had contributed to the development of a new farm estates policy, which had since been approved and aligned with the Council’s sustainable development principles. • It was requested that the new farm estates policy be circulated to Committee members, subject to any confidentiality considerations. • No further updates were reported from other working groups at that time.
No queries or concerns were raised.
• The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Corporate Transformation introduced the Quarter 4 Strategic Risk Register and reported that there were 11 non-confidential risks recorded on the register at the end of the reporting period. • All strategic risk owners had provided updates on progress since the previous quarter, and full details of risks and mitigating actions were set out within the report and supporting appendices. • No risks had changed in terms of their probability or impact ratings during the quarter. • A new risk (EDR0014) had been proposed for inclusion on the Strategic Risk Register, relating to the potential long-term impact of demographic imbalance and economic growth challenges in Powys. This risk reflected concerns that, without continued investment and intervention, the Council could face a declining working-age population, increased demand from an ageing population, and pressures on workforce availability and service sustainability. • It was noted that the proposed risk carried a high residual rating, reflecting both the scale of the issue and the level of external factors influencing it. • The Committee was also advised that the Council’s risk appetite had recently been reviewed and approved, and that risk owners were responsible for determining how risks should be managed within available resources. Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Committee raised concerns that a number of risks remained above the Council’s risk tolerance boundaries and queried how the Committee could better understand the basis for residual risk ratings. Committee also questioned the distinction between risks within the Council’s control and those influenced by external factors, particularly in relation to the newly proposed demographic risk. In relation to the new demographic risk, the high residual rating reflected both the scale of the issue and the time required for mitigation actions to have an effect, as well as the influence of wider economic and external factors. It was noted that mitigation actions, such as economic strategy development and workforce initiatives, were being undertaken, but their impact would be gradual, and external factors (such as economic conditions) could continue to affect outcomes. Committee requested an update on the progress towards a Risk Workshop which was agreed at the last meeting. Committee were assured that the Chair was meeting with key officers in the first week of July to agree details. It was suggested that the presentation of the risk register could be improved, including the inclusion of clear milestones, timelines and more detailed progress indicators, to allow members to better understand the pace of change and risk mitigation. Additional clarity in reporting formats would support governance and oversight by making it easier to interpret the current position and trends. Officers acknowledged these points and indicated that improvements to the presentation and clarity of the risk register would be considered, alongside further discussions at the planned workshop. Members questioned whether there was sufficient alignment between the strategic risks identified and the actions proposed to address them. A potential imbalance was highlighted between long-term territorial risks and organisational responses, citing climate change as an example. The member asked whether this was a valid concern, whether the risk-action framework should be reviewed, and how such a review would be undertaken. Additional work to address the climate and nature emergencies was undertaken through wider partnerships, including the Public Service Board, which had its own objectives and actions in these areas. It was acknowledged that these partnership-led mitigating actions were not currently reflected in the Council’s risk register, which focused on Council activity. Officers agreed to review how wider partnership work and associated mitigating actions could be better aligned with, and reflected in, the risk register to improve visibility and understanding. Since the risk assessments were last reviewed, changes in government priorities could affect established economic development and regeneration programmes. It was asked how this risk was being monitored and how the Council was preparing for any financial or service impacts arising from changes to external funding and policy direction. Officers were closely monitoring the priorities of the new Senedd administration and had reviewed how existing Council projects, particularly those relating to economic development, aligned with its ambitions. Engagement had taken place with Welsh Government officers and ministers to promote Powys’ priorities and demonstrate the impact of existing funding programmes. The Council’s Economic Strategy had also been refreshed to reflect emerging national priorities. It was noted that officers were monitoring future funding arrangements and advocating for continued investment, highlighting strong demand for schemes such as Transforming Towns and the Council’s readiness to deliver additional projects should further funding become available. Committee noted the report.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following item 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). The Monitoring Officer has determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applies to the following item. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). These factors in his view outweigh the public interest in disclosing this information. Members are asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting.
RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following item 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). The Monitoring Officer has determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applies to the following item. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 14.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). These factors in his view outweigh the public interest in disclosing this information. Members are asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting.
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.