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 (8 March 2021).

2.  The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (5 March 2021).

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

There were six questions from members of the public.  These and the responses were published as a supplement to the agenda.  Summary of supplementary questions included:

1.    Jenifer Condit acted as representative for Simon Hallett who asked a detailed question around whether or not it was believed that external organisations were green washing or just prudent risk managers.  The Chairman stated that this was asking for his opinion which he could not give and pointed out that later in the meeting was to be a report from Border to Coast that shows that they are taking ESG very seriously. Simon was asked to email his question to the pension team for a written response.

2.    Jenifer Condit stated that she was concerned about the Committee’s engagement policy.  One part in particular was to do with voting on a motion for Shell to disclose targets to be in line with the Paris Agreement.  In the years 2017-19 the Fund voted for the motion but in 2020, abstained from supporting it.  What was the rationale?  The pension team to give a written response.

3.    Helena Ritter asked if the Committee were aware of the Net Zero Investment Framework and would they engage with Border to Coast to encourage them to apply to the framework?  The Strategic Finance Manager (Pensions) stated that they and Border to Coast were aware of the framework and that it was under consideration.

4.      Pat Smith stated the BP were investing £53.2 billion in fossil fuels and renewables and gave examples of why the Committee should divest from BP, for example they were not agreeing to Paris and ignoring engagement. Therefore what more did the Committee need to instruct Border to Coast to instruct managers to divest from BP?  In response, the Chairman stated that the Committee believed in engagement rather than divesting and that divesting from any company was not the right way forward and just pushed the problem elsewhere.  The Chairman went on the say that managers would be aware of the issues she raised and that it was down to them to engage or divest.

5.    Ian Chappell stated that as of end of December the Fund Manager Newton held £1.1m of shares in Suncore and that this was a worst in class company.  Therefore, why does the Fund continue to invest in Suncore?  The Chairman responded that the Committee did not instruct managers to invest or divest but gave them an overriding set of principles linked to the Investment Strategy and that he would arrange for a written response from the Investment Manager.

6.    Janice Baker stated that she could not see from the response to the original question that there was any sense of urgency in getting down to this and asked what are the outcomes of the analysis and what were the target outcomes and asked for a timeframe.  The Chairman responded that the Committee were aware of stranded assets and pointed Janice to a later report on the agenda for the implementation of the investment strategy which gave regard to sustainable development and growth.  The concept of stranded assets was incorporated in everything that was being done.  The Committee were continually looking to move the portfolio to a position where it does satisfy the those principles as far as able.