Agenda item

To receive any questions or petitions.

Notes:

a)    The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (05/07/2021).

b)    The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (02/07/2021).

c)    One petition with 751 signatories has been received from Mr Stephen McDonald and reads:

Remove all investments in oil, gas and coal

Why is this important? Right now the Surrey Pension Fund has around £90 million invested directly in climate wrecking fossil fuels despite the efforts of our DivestSurrey campaign and many similar campaign groups across Surrey to persuade them to divest. Thousands of people across the country are asking why local authority pension funds such as ours in Surrey deem it acceptable to fund companies like BP who have a committed £41 billion looking for new fossil fuel reserves over the next decade. It is absolutely senseless!

One petition with 751 signatories was received from Mr Stephen McDonald that requested the removal of all investments in oil, gas and coal.  The petition and the Committee response were published as a supplement to the agenda.

There were six questions from six members of the public.  These and the Committee responses were published as a supplement to the agenda.

Supplementary questions included:

1. Janice Baker welcomed the prospect of a new investment policy and asked how the policy would inject urgency into divestment of those not reaching the goals and would there be some sort of plan in place in which say a two-year period for improvement could be given and then divestment will happen if goals not reached?  The Chairman stated that he hoped a more proactive approach be taken in relation to these issues in the new Responsible Investment policy.
2. Ian Chappell on behalf of Steve McDonald requested that the Committee response to the Surrey Pension Act Now report be provided before the September meeting of the Committee.  The Chairman stated that the Committee were unable to commit to any specific deadline, but if it is able to publish the response before then it would.
3. Ian Chappell asked what changes were expected and how will those changes be measured and to what timescale?  The Chairman noted Mr Chappell’s points which were well made and assured Mr Chappell that the Committee were serious.
4. Jenifer Condit stated that if the Pension Fund voted its shares in a particular way, but, this did not achieve overall support and Shell continue to not publish a plan that is consistent with Paris aligned goals, how can engagement teeth bite or will further escalation be required? If so, what further evidence will be required in the view of the Committee?  The Chairman responded that the question could not be answered until the strategy was developed.
5. Jenifer Condit on behalf of Simon Hallett stated that the report on responsible investing contains information regarding applying SDG criteria to manager selection but nothing about discussion with managers in order to positively contribute to lower carbon transition.  Can you confirm that the Committee will consider and report back on this when the strategy is developed?  The Chairman responded that points made were noted and would be considered.
6. Jenifer Condit on behalf of Isobel Griffiths stated that the response to her original question did not answer her question.  She has asked to see the allocation of funding to fossil fuel shares and the only way she can get this information is through a freedom of information request which is not made public.  Also, the Fund does not give detail on sector breakdown: why?  The Chairman responded that a lot of information is made public and the Fund were looking at other ways in which to give members information. Another Member stated that he was disappointed with the response given to the original question and that the information requested should be easily provided routinely.  The Chairman stated that this comment would be taken on board and that the communication strategy was reviewed annually.