None.

Any Member of the Committee, or any other Member present in the meeting room, who has a disclosable pecuniary interest, in a matter to be considered at the meeting is reminded to disclose the interest to the meeting and to leave the room while any discussion or vote on the matter takes place.

Members are also reminded that if they have any other significant interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting, whether registered or not, which they feel should be declared in the public interest, such interests should be declared to the meeting. In such circumstances Members should consider whether a member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard the interest as so significant that it is likely to prejudice their consideration or decision making. If the Member considers that to be the case, they should leave the room while any discussion or vote on the matter takes place.

There were none.

The minutes were agreed as an accurate record of meeting of 26 March and signed by the chair.

Duncan Derbyshire introduced the report. Concerning the audit, results were awaited, and no initial feedback had been received. He commented that the new member feedback form had been created and was designed to capture informal complaints.

The Board noted the report.

Julia Stevens summarised the table on page 1 of the fund valuations up to 31 December 2024. She reported the Investment Committee on 1 April’s meeting had decided, in keeping with policy, that no rebalancing of funds was required as the assets were still within the ranges.

The Chair sought reassurance on Baillie Gifford’s (BG) performance (para 2.8). Julia Stevens emphasised that as an active fund manager, short term movement in value was expected but the long-term trends were more important. She reported that BG last year had attended an Investment Committee meeting to explain recent changes to personnel and processes which were now more transparent. Mercer, the independent financial advisor continued to monitor BG’s performance and expressed confidence in BG following its structural changes.

The Board noted the 224% funding level for the fund in the actuarial funding report in appendix 3.

The report was noted.

Julia Stevens introduced the report.

In response to the Board's queries, it was explained that indirect management expenses, such as transactional and legal costs, would be included in the accounts but would not impact cash flow. It was noted that property acquisitions have led to increased rental income, with the Fund working with CBRE and the Council’s legal team to secure rental uplifts through reviews. Overall, the increase in rental income reflects the quality of the assets, and their tenants and were closely managed by the landlord.

The number of voids was low and a recent ‘letters to action’ had proved effective.

Progress on the new finance system (Oracle) was encouraging. Oracle was used widely by local authorities, and expert follow up support was provided. The level of training ensured that glitches should be minimal. Julia Stevens was hopeful the Council would produce and publish draft accounts by the government deadline.

The Board noted the report.

Julia Stevens introduced the report. The Board noted (in para 3.2) that the purchase of a temporary accommodation building for use by the Council had been included in the risk register. Detailed discussions on a suitable property and funding opportunities continued.

The Board discussed at some length the ramifications of the Investment Committee’s decision on 4 February to lower the Council’s contribution rate to nil. The Board noted the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)’s letter issued on 10 March sent to all local government funds regarding employer contribution rates and the intention to consult on changes to the Regulation 64A. The proposal would prevent employers amending contribution rates (in the future) to manage surpluses or deficits that had not been confirmed as part of the valuation process.

There had been no change to the Investment Committee’s decision of 4 February. Any government challenge to this decision would need to occur imminently. This represented a technical risk and if a challenge took place, the employer contribution rate was likely to revert to 15%. Jagdeep Birdi was grateful for the council’s clear communication with schools over the zero-contribution rate, but he expressed deep concern on the financial risk any legal challenge represented for schools given their funding levels and the rules governing reserves.

The Chair and Board recognised the importance of officers providing schools with a clear and timely steer on how to manage any financial difficulties resulting from the latest position.

Action: Lisa Taylor, Julia Stevens, Jagdeep Birdi.

The Board noted the government department’s message to all local authorities was aimed to discourage employer changes to contribution rates in order to manage budget surpluses or deficits.

The report was noted.

(Each written report on the Agenda detailed above:

(i)     was made available for public inspection from the date of the Agenda;

(ii)    incorporates a list of the background papers which (i) disclose any facts or matters on which that report, or any important part of it, is based; and (ii) have been relied upon to a material extent in preparing it.  (Relevant documents which contain confidential or exempt information are not listed.); and

(iii)    may, with the consent of the Chairman and subject to specified reasons, be supported at the meeting by way of oral statement or further written report in the event of special circumstances arising after the despatch of the Agenda.)

Sohal Rawal referred to the report discussed at 1 April’s Investment Committee on Project Gallagher: Advisory Review on Fund Governance and asked if this review was to be referred to the Audit Committee. Pat Rowe commented on the responsibilities of risk assessment allocated to the Investment Committee. It was also noted that the wider plans on pooling of funds under consideration by the government could supersede some of the recommendations in the review. The Chair highlighted the need for clarity over the Board’s responsibility for assessing risks listed in the register and asked that more information be circulated on the roles for risk assessment that were in the remit of the Pension Board, Investment Committee and Audit Committee.

Action: Julia Stevens, Pat Rowe, David Hughes

Julia Stevens provided an update which included a market overview, recent and pipeline acquisitions, property management and rental collection. A more detailed minute was to be included in the part B set of minutes.

The Board noted the report.