Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
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 were received from Debby Jones.
There were no declarations of interest.
The minutes of the last meeting held on 9th December 2025 were agreed as a correct record. The Board noted that the cyber security item had not yet gone to the committee due to timing issues, and that the Pension Fund Manager intended to revisit the policy considering recent learning before publishing it as soon as possible.
The Chair stated that agenda items would cover matters arising.
The Board noted the Pensions Committee minutes from 27 November 2025.
The Chair of the Board reported on activities since the December Board meeting: • Multiple meetings held with the Pension Fund Manager in December to refine and finalise the Fund’s response to the MHCLG consultation on ‘LGPS Fit for the Future’. • After meeting with the Pension Fund Manager in January, the Chair completed and sent the Fund’s response to The Pensions Regulator’s public service pension schemes governance and administration survey • Attendance at: • LAPF Conference in Windsor, raising the profile of Powys and Welsh LGPS considerations. • LGPS Governance Conference in Cardiff, where governance reforms, dashboards, and investment management changes were key themes. • Participation in WPP Board Chairs meetings and discussions relating to structure and progress of the new WPP Investment Management Company (IM Co). • Attendance at Pension Committee briefing calls relating to WPP IM Co governance and legal structures. • Confirmation that constituent authorities’ formal decisions on delegation to the new IM Co were expected on 24 February 2026.
2.3 McCloud Remedy • National Pension Officer Group (NPOG) had agreed consistent data sharing standards between funds. • A new Projects Officer had been appointed and commenced work in mid December. • Forward looking McCloud work was fully integrated into business as usual calculations since October 2023. • Backlog cases remained the challenge; revisiting historic pay and hours data remained resource intensive. • Detailed reporting on McCloud progress would be brought to future Board meetings. 2.4, LGPS Growth & Retirement Trends • National statistical trends show: • Approximately 10% growth in LGPS membership over five years. • Approximately 30% increase in retirements over the same period. • The Powys Fund mirrored these trends. • The Fund now had more pensioners than active contributors for the first time. • This shift was influencing investment strategy and administrative workloads. 2.2, 2.5, 2.6 • Items 2.2, 2.5 and 2.6 related to impending statutory instruments and consultations; the Fund had submitted responses at both Wales wide and local levels. • Emphasis placed on monitoring workload pressures as multiple regulatory changes come into force simultaneously. 2.7 Pensions Ombudsman – Overpayments • The Ombudsman had issued new guidance encouraging dispute resolution before escalation. • The Fund would reflect this guidance when reviewing its Overpayments Policy in 2026. 3.2 Pensions Dashboards • The Fund connected to the dashboard ecosystem ahead of the 31 October 2025 statutory deadline. • Unknown future workload impact remained the primary risk. • Once fully launched by Government (expected October 2026): • Members will be able to question missing or incomplete data. • Fund would be required to provide corrected data within 10 working days. • The Pension Fund Manager highlighted the importance of reducing backlogs and caseload management before dashboards become fully operational. 4.1 The Pension Regulator (TPR) • Updated TPR guidance highlighted practical expectations for administration and business continuity planning. • The Pension Fund Manager had attended recent events on cyber and business continuity and planned to integrate learning into refreshed policies. • Cyber policy would be re‑checked to ensure alignment with wider business continuity documentation before being brought back to the Board. 5.1 Resourcing within the Pensions Team • One vacancy remained unfilled after earlier unsuccessful recruitment; further advertising was imminent. • The new appointments had already contributed to improved workload and knowledge sharing. 5.2 Triennial Valuation Update • December 2025 Pensions & Investment Committee had agreed necessary parameters to progress completion of the valuation. • Employers had received their draft results; contributions effective 1 April 2026. • The Fund was in a stronger position, partly due to favourable investment performance. • The full report would be shared once available. 5.3 TPR Governance & Administration Survey • Completed jointly by the Pension Fund Manager and the Chair. Submitted ahead of the deadline. Questions and concerns raised Officer Response The Board expressed concern that pressures on the administration team appeared to be increasing due to McCloud, dashboards, and wider regulatory expectations. The Pension Fund Manager stated that the Project Officer came from elsewhere within the Councilwith strong project management and data handling skills, which had already added value, and was positively contributing to governance and workflow. It was agreed that pressure was real and increasing due to McCloud, dashboards and wider regulatory change. Assurance was given that resourcing would be monitored closely and that additional capacity from new appointments was already easing some of the burden around the administration team. The Pension Fund Manager would report back to the Board on caseload and resource implications. When would dashboards become publicly operational and would the impact fall primarily on the administration team. Public functionality was expected by October 2026, although the Fund had already connected to the dashboard ecosystem. It was confirmed that the dashboard related workload would fall mainly on the administration team, especially for data queries and corrections, although it was emphasised that the impact on workloads would not be known until other pension schemes connected and it was being used by the public. Could a pilot group or early access process be used to identify common data inaccuracies or likely error types before the full launch. The Pension Fund Manager explained that the dashboard “soft launch” would act as a de facto pilot. Early issues would likely be related to: • Incorrect match keys (e.g., NI numbers or postcodes), and • Deferred benefits not yet fully processed or calculated. The Board noted the report.
The Pensions Fund Manager presented the item: • The new TPR Code of Practice had been launched almost two years earlier, it was initially reviewed against the fund’s existing arrangements, identifying no major concerns. • At the point of launch, a small number of areas required prompt attention, including the cyber policy presented in draft at the previous meeting. • A new Governance and Communications Officer had been appointed, and they had been meeting weekly with the Pension Fund and Administration Manager to undertake a more detailed review of the code. Their recent work had focused on the administration section of the code and had identified areas where evidence and documentation needed strengthening. • The regulator’s focus on comprehensive evidence and clear documentary links was emphasised, noting the opportunity this presented to reduce key‑person risk by consolidating knowledge and processes. • Efforts had been made to create a central hub for documentation, so staff could easily access procedures without relying on long‑standing knowledge held mainly by senior team members. • Some scoring changes (e.g., from amber to red) were introduced simply to flag areas for development, not because processes were absent, but because further evidencing was needed. • Certain elements of the tool included private‑sector standards, which might not directly apply to the LGPS, and the Pension Fund Manager would check that these were not skewing results. • There were no concerns about the fund’s compliance, and the key task now was improving documentation, transparency, and evidencing. Questions and concerns raised Officer Response The Board raised concern that the report recommended noting “changes in scoring” but the PDF version did not allow members to see the previous scores or compare them interactively. The Pension Fund Manager explained that the interactive tool was designed for internal officer use; the exported PDF could not replicate the clickable links. Verbal clarification was provided on the scoring changes. The Board questioned the reason for five red indicators under the “Board Structure and Activities” module, seeking clarity on whether these were genuinely areas of concern or artefacts of the scoring tool. The Pension Fund Manager clarified that some red indicators related to elements designed for private sector schemes, which were not wholly applicable to public service governance models. He agreed to review whether these items should be marked differently. Was the Fund expected to achieve fully “green” compliance across all Code modules, or would a realistic compliance profile include some lower‑rated areas. The Pension Fund Manager confirmed the Fund was not expected to achieve 100% green. Some Code requirements reflected “best practice” rather than essential compliance, so amber was acceptable in certain areas. The Board requested clarification on whether their focus should be more on high-risk indicators rather than striving for perfection across all modules. The Pension Fund Manager agreed this was appropriate, and noted that future reports would better distinguish areas requiring urgent attention. If a score had been moved from amber to red, it was expected that an “essential action” be listed. Why did the corresponding section not reflect this. It was suggested that future scoring changes should include explanatory wording to give members full insight into the rationale. The Pension Fund Manager acknowledged this and committed to improving the formatting and explanations in the next review cycle. A query was raised in relation to the Governing Body section rather than the administrative elements. On page 30, the first box concerning the Governing Body showed five questions highlighted in red relating to board structure and activities. The question asked whether the Pension Fund Manager recalled what those five areas referred to. The tool included an option to differentiate between the public and private sectors, and the private sector element had been retained to capture potential best practice learning. He noted that some aspects might therefore be nonapplicable and confirmed that he would review the settings to ensure the correct filters were applied. The Board noted the report.
• This report was provided for information only. Further detailed pooling discussions would occur in the confidential session. • The Chair noted that the WPP had recently won several national awards, demonstrating strong innovation and collaboration.
The Board noted the following in respect of standing items: a) Breaches Register No new breaches were recorded. b) Audit reports No updates required. c) Internal Dispute Resolution Procedure [IDRP] No updates required.
• All three risk register pillars were presented for reference. • There were no recent score changes, only updated narrative from periodic review cycles. • With the new Governance Officer’s support, the intention was to undertake a comprehensive re-evaluation ofthe entire register. • A refreshed format may be brought to future meetings. Questions and concerns raised Officer Response The Board proposed continuing with the existing approach of reviewing one pillar at a time but queried whether the term “deep dive” was appropriate for the annual full register review. Would a refreshed structure or reprioritised risks emerge following the Governance Officer’s review. The Pension Fund Manager confirmed there was flexibility in terminology and agreed that the annual review could be described differently if preferred. It was confirmed that the Governance Officer’s review might rearrange, update or re‑prioritise risks and that revised registers would be brought back to the Board. How would the new Governance Officer interact with corporate risk management functions and would they receive dedicated training. The Board suggested concentrating scrutiny on high-scoring risks rather than equal attention across all entries. The Pension Fund Manager stated the officer would receive mandatory corporate training and access to corporate expertise. It was agreed that focusing on higher-risk areas was a sensible approach. The Board asked how it could add value to the Fund’s new governance arrangements, rather than duplicating officer work. The Pension Fund Manager suggested that refreshed registers and clearer reporting would help the Board target its oversight more effectively. The Board supported an updated register format and sought assurance that clearer documentation and improved presentation would aid Board scrutiny. The Pension Fund Manager agreed improved documentation and presentation were priorities and confirmed that work was already underway. The Board noted the report.
Future Board meeting dates were noted.
Decision as recorded
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.
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.