Co-Chair of Joint Audit and Standards Committee
At its meeting on 28 November 2022, the Joint Audit and Standards Committee considered Paper JAC/21/38 – Half Year Report on Treasury Management 2022/23. The recommendations set out in the report were accepted.
It was RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL:
1) That the Treasury Management activity for the first six months of 2022/23 as set out in report JAC/21/38 and Appendices be noted.
2) That it be noted that Mid Suffolk District Council’s treasury management activity for the first six months of 2022/23 was in accordance with the approved Treasury Management Strategy, and that, except for one occasion when the Council exceeded its daily bank account limit with Lloyds, as mentioned in Appendix C, paragraph 4.1, the Council has complied with all the Treasury Management Indicators for this period.
Note – It is a requirement of the Code of Practice on Treasury Management that full Council notes the Half-Year position.
Minutes:
The Chair invited Councillor Muller, the Co-Chair of Joint Audit and Standards Committee to introduce report JAC/21/38.
Councillor Muller and the Corporate Manger for Finance, Commissioning and Procurement corrected errors within the report:
· On pg.43 point 9 of 4.7, it should state that Mid Suffolk’s overall debt decreased by £7millon in line with table 3 appendix B.
· On pg.53 in table 2 in appendix A, it should state medium/long-term borrowing of £104,835million and short-term borrowing of £30.5million at 31/3/22 and medium/long-term borrowing of £99.285million and short-term borrowing of £29million at 30/9/22. Table 3 on pg.55 show the corrected borrowing figures.
Councillor Muller PROPOSED the Recommendations which was SECONDED by Councillor Caston.
Councillor Warboys enquired in regard to pg.42 as to why barriers to trade, in particular with the Eurozone, were not included in the context of how the report was made.
The Director of Corporate Resources advised that the economic context is provided by treasury advisors and that she would ask them about the inclusion of barriers to trade for reports going forward.
Councillor Otton queried pg.62 paragraph 1.14-17 in regard to the department of levelling up, stating the decision as yet to be announced with unusable reserves and requested further clarity on possible changes in how councils are able to manage.
The Corporate Manager for Finance, Commissioning & Procurement replied that since the report was prepared, an announcement had been received on the issue and this entails an accounting adjustment which negates the impact of rises and falls of the values of these investments on Council’s revenue budget and has been extended up to the financial year of 24/25.
Councillor Eburne asked in regard to the review of all council activities and ESG considerations pg.44 paragraphs 11.1 and 11.3, what work was being carried out by cabinet to progress these points. Additionally, Councillor Eburne enquired about the lack of initial investment figures listed on pg.68 for all investment tables.
The Director for Corporate Resources confirmed issues will be taken forward with the treasury advisors.
Councillor Amorowson asked whether there was an error on pg.64 with tables 6.2 and 6.3 due to their similarity.
The Corporate Manager for Finance, Commissioning & Procurement responded that the tables will be checked for accuracy.
Councillor Matthissen asked a question related to pg.60 whether the CIPFA code and government guidance on treasury has yet to recommend ESG criteria, as well as security, liquidity and prudence.
The Director for Corporate Resources was not aware of any current conversations with CIPFA but recognised that more work is required on the matter.
Councillor Mansel questioned the inclusion of the climate change task group on pg.44 section 11.
The Director for Corporate Resources confirmed that while the task group is no longer active, activities will still be reviewed through the guise of the work on climate change.
Councillors debated the report. Comments were made on mitigating risk. Discontent was voiced with the errors within and delay to the report, and concern towards the lack of diversity of investments. Conversely, it was acknowledged that the report is a snapshot in time, and that a periodic review may be more preferrable. In addition, it was advised that officers and the audit committee perform more rigorously going forward.
The Chair explained the report required formal noting.
It was RESOLVED:
1) That the Treasury Management activity for the first six months of 2022/23 as set out in report JAC/21/38 and Appendices be noted.
2) That it be noted that Mid Suffolk District Council’s treasury management activity for the first six months of 2022/23 was in accordance with the approved Treasury Management Strategy, and that, except for one occasion when the Council exceeded its daily bank account limit with Lloyds, as mentioned in Appendix C, paragraph 4.1, the Council has complied with all the Treasury Management Indicators for this period.
Supporting documents: