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 (9 December 2024).

2.  The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (6 December 2024).

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

a   There were no Member questions.

  b   Six public questions had been submitted, those and the responses were published in a supplementary agenda.

The Chairman noted that a seventh public question over the maximum of six had been submitted and a written response would be provided. 

There were six supplementary questions:

SQ1 - Borough Councillor Shasha Khan: Noted that the UK Government was behind the curve regarding UK public and world opinion in its decision-making concerning calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. He asked whether the Committee could consult the members of the Surrey Pension Fund (the Fund) to see whether they would like to have a say regarding arms companies that have been invested in such as BAE Systems PLC and which have a direct role in the conflict in Israel/Gaza.

The Chairman noted that the Fund in consultation with its membership had adopted its own policy which included restrictions concerning certain weapons outlawed by the United Nations (UN), its policy would continue to be looked at.

A Committee member noted that when Russia invaded Ukraine, the Fund did not need to wait for the UK government’s affirmation that international law was being broken, in response the Fund voluntarily chose to divest from all investments in Russian companies. The conflict in Gaza was being investigated by the International Criminal Court regarding crimes against humanity and genocide. Therefore, considering divestment from arms companies in the Israel/Gaza conflict was not incompatible with the Responsible Investment (RI) Policy, not supplying arms to nations committing genocide was in line with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The Committee member queried how it had been interpreted that the RI Policy did not justify acting.

The LGPS Senior Officer clarified that the Fund was taking a consistent approach by following UK government advice and had ceased trading in Russian assets following such UK government advice.

SQ2 - Jackie Macey: noted the possibility that the Government's proposed changes in the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) framework might reduce the Committee’s control of its investments. She asked whether the Committee saw a more pressing need to consider the application of consequences of engagement where negotiations had insufficient impact, before any of the Government’s changes proposed limits on local options.

A Committee member noted that alignment to the SDGs was part of the RI Policy, in particular SDG 13 on Climate Action, it was concerning that whilst the aim of the SDGs to meet net zero was 2030, the Fund’s target was 2050 or earlier.

The Chairman noted the importance about what happens at the end of engagement, that would be addressed under item 12 on Investment Beliefs and we should ask BCPP to respond when updating their RI policy.

SQ3 - Janice Baker - on Janice’s behalf Jackie Macey: queried that there must be a trigger that could be applied to hold those companies that greenwash to account, UKOG continued to drill illegally for months after planning permission was quashed.

The Chairman noted that whilst drilling affected the Council, the possible planning issues was not a matter for the Surrey Pension Fund Committee.

SQ4 - Kevin Clarke: asked whether the Committee agreed that the Mercer report was a game changer regarding fossil fuels.

The Chairman noted that the Committee commissioned that crucial report.

A Committee member believed that the workshops underway were partly about deciding what actions to take as a result of Mercer’s report and sought clarification about whether that was the case as opposed to simply noting the report. The Chairman highlighted item 12 on Investment Beliefs, two panel sessions had been held and a third was planned. He noted that the matter of divestment would be looked at as part of the RI Policy.

SQ5 - Lindsey Coeur-Belle: noted that despite the UN Summit held in September 2023 to invigorate efforts to achieve the SDGs by 2030, progress was patchy and as reported in 2023: only 15% were on track, 48% were moderately or severely off track, and 37% had stagnated or regressed. Regarding RI, she asked whether the Committee would reconsider its position given the poor performance to date.

The Chairman noted the need to look at performance and the RI Policy.

A Committee member noted that the issue concerned the interpretation of the RI Policy, that needed to be discussed. Another Committee member noted that the UN’s aim for SDGs to be reached by 2030 was clearly defined, and therefore they must be taken more seriously.

SQ6 - Jenifer Condit - on Jenifer’s behalf Lindsey Coeur-Belle: noted a recent announcement of a new 50:50 joint venture called Jera Nex BP. It appeared to be greenwashing, BP was shifting its renewables business off its balance sheet and looked for further investment elsewhere. She asked how many times BP had to indicate that it was not serious about divestment from fossil fuels, before the Committee decides to believe them.

The Chairman requested a written response from BCPP regarding the investments in the three companies identified and how engagement had proceeded.

A Committee member was disappointed by the written response which simply stated that the position was to favour engagement over blanket divestment, and whilst in line with the RI Policy, the question asked specifically about the three companies which based on the records were not serious about decarbonisation. Divestment, whilst to be used as a last resort, could be used to apply consequences when engagement fails.

The Chairman noted that regarding the RI Policy, the decision to make investments to get satisfactory returns was delegated to the Fund’s investment managers, he noted that it would be useful to get their views on why they continued to invest in the three companies listed in the original question.

  c   There were no petitions.

Actions/further information to be provided:

1.    12/24 - A written response to the seventh public question would be provided outside of the meeting, and a written response to SQ6 would be provided.