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 (05/09/2022).

2.  The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (02/09/2022).

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

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

1.    Jennifer Condit asked on behalf of Lucianna Cole: was it the council’s intention to publish all of the replies, including replies that were supplemental to filling out the questionnaire.

The Chairman responded that it was normal practice to publish the replies received including the supplementary replies provided in the free-format box and additional letters or emails. The LGPS Senior Officer stated that detail would be confirmed on how the responses could be accessed. 

In regard to the consultation questionnaire, Cllr Williams stated that various points of concern had been raised on the consultation process during discussion at the previous meeting on the timing, nature of the consultation and the possibility of one of more public consultation events. When reading the consultation questions, Cllr Williams stated that he had come to the view that the consultation was a sham and should be restarted. There were also two questions that had been raised and discussed at committee which were not included on the consultation form. This included 1. Do you believe that the Surrey Pension Fund should take immediate steps to divest from fossil fuels? And 2. At what point should the Surrey Pension Fund aim to become a net-zero carbon fund. Should it be 2030, 2035, 2040 or 2050. Cllr Williams stressed that these questions should be included and that the consultation process should be stopped and restarted.

The Chairman confirmed that, following comments made by members of the committee, and as the consultation had already begun, item 16 would be discussed in public. Cllr Potter was concerned that the item was originally due to be held in private, and stressed that he did not agreed with the decision to launch the consultation prior to approval from the Committee, and furthermore, that the consultation was not delayed due to the death of Her Majesty The Queen.

2.    Jennifer Condit asked on behalf of Kevin Clarke: Mole Valley was not any employee but rather one of the 11 district and borough councils and as an employer it contributed over £2 million to the scheme last year and employees contributed over £600,000 and therefore the district council’s view should have some weight, rather than just referring them to the public consultation on the policy. Furthermore, the fact that the policy did not specify a net-zero carbon date would mean that they would not find an answer within the consultation that aligned with their view.

The Chairman responded that they were asking all employers for input and that all feedback was important. All feedback would be taken into account and a response would be provided following the end of the consultation.

Cllr Williams reiterated the need to restart the consultation and also stated that there could be a need for a specific consultation between the district and boroughs within Surrey.

Cllr Potter raised concern that an employer of the Surrey Pension Fund had raised an issue separate from the consultation and the response was to ask that the district council provide feedback within the consultation, rather than responding separately. The Chairman confirmed that the service would be responding specifically to Mole Valley after the meeting.

3.    Lindsey Coeur-Belle asked on behalf of Clive Teague: Border to Coast Pensions Partnership have said “infrastructure is a key asset class of our partner funds as they seek attractive investment opportunities and diversification of risk”. What is the carbon profile of the Surrey investments in the above funds, and can the committee assure the public that no investments from this fund is for fossil fuel exploration or extraction.

The LGPS Senior Officer asked that the member of the public write to the council to receive a detailed response, which was agreed.

Cllr Potter said he was surprised to read that the climate opportunities fund did not have any specific exclusion against investment in fossil fuel exploration or extraction and asked for clarification from the fund managers as to why the fund did not contain the exclusion. The Chairman agreed to receive an update on this at the next meeting.

4.    Lindsey Coeur-Belle asked: we are facing an environmental and ecological emergency requiring immediate action. We can also add a climate scandal. We know the fossil fuel industry has acted immorally. We know that they have been aware for at least 40 years of the damaging impact on climate that burning fossil fuels would have. The public are now aware and may well ask members of this committee how long will they collude with the fossil fuel industry to destroy this planet, our home.

The Chairman responded that a response had been provided to the original question about adopting the Responsible Investment Policy, subject to consultation.

5.    Jenifer Condit asked: do you see an opportunity to vary the nature of the engagement activity you undertake when you are confronted with such a very specific aggreges form of financing activity by the banks and companies creating such misery in the world, and in Surrey.

The Chairman responded that the scheme’s key means of engagement was with the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum (LAPFF) and that they had been urged to focus on the role of banks, and would remind them of this during future meetings.

Cllr Potter ask why the scheme was not expressing to the Border to Coast Pension Partnership that there was concern about specific investments in financing Russian carbon projects. The Chairman agreed to engage with Border to Coast on this.

Actions / Further information to be provided:

Action A2/22 - Cllr Potter said he was surprised to read that the climate opportunities fund did not have any specific exclusion against investment in fossil fuel exploration or extraction and asked for clarification from the fund managers as to why the fund did not contain the exclusion. The Chairman agreed to receive an update on this at the next meeting.

A3/22 - Cllr Potter ask why the scheme was not expressing to the Border to Coast Pension Partnership that there was concern about specific investments in financing Russian carbon projects. The Chairman agreed to engage with Border to Coast on this.