Agenda item

To receive any questions or petitions.

Notes:

1.  The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (4 June 2018).

2.  The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (1 June 2018).

3.  The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received.

1. Members of the public noted the response to questions submitted which are attached to the minutes as Annex A. The questioners asked the following supplementary questions in response:
   
   
   1. Cllr Jonathan Essex, on behalf of Sarah Finch: Please can the Committee request the LAPFF confirm what transition plans exist for oil and gas investments to a 1.5C warming scenario and provide evidence that this approach has delivered a reduction in carbon exposure to date.
      
      
   2. Question By Sally Elias: It was noted that other comparable funds and organisations were looking at disinvestment in fossil fuels. Does the Surrey Pension Fund invest in Suncor with its tar sands interests and what does it take to convince the Committee to take your funds out of such an environmentally damaging business?
      
      
   3. Question by Vicki Elcoate: I understand that Surrey CC Pension fund has over £45m invested in BP. Are Pension Fund members aware that BP holds nearly a 20% stake in Russian state oil company Rosneft and sits on its board? This is despite the Russian oil giant having one of the world's worst records on safety and spills. It also no longer seems very sound in terms of investment to have your pension fund associated with the Russian regime. What does it take to convince the Board that the fossil fuel business involves dirty money and it’s time to get out?
      
      
   4. Question by Janet Baker on behalf of Pat Horitz:
      
      On the question of fiduciary responsibility, would the SPF committee bear in mind that the increasing support for moving investments out of fossil fuels and into Socially Responsible Investments and that investment in SRIs is bringing healthy returns capable of outperforming conventional investments?
      
      

e.    Question by Stephen McDonald: I referred firstly to an extract from a LAPFF report produced in conjunction with Carbon Tracker which states in its’ introduction, “most oil companies seem to plan their business on the assumption that the action on climate change needed to deliver a 2deg C scenario will not emerge in the foreseeable future”
I added, “the SPF know this only too well as the Shell website reveals some 21 new fossil fuel extraction projects supported by c. £ 60 million of Surrey Pension Fund investments”
My question was, “If we assume that the Pension Fund Trustees supported by a range of different Pension professionals are aware of the outcomes of their investment decisions, could the committee tell me what is the environmental outcome of the £ 130 million currently invested in the fossil fuel industry?”
It would make the point that an environmental outcome would be expressed in environmental terms; temperature, flooding, extreme weather events, sea level rise, ecosystem breakdown etc.
This question was not answered in section 4 of the meeting (questions and petitions) and was referred forward to the carbon asset exposure review section. Nor was in answered in this section.

It was noted that a response to these supplementary questions would be provided in writing after the meeting and attached to the minutes as Annex B.