A new Responsible Investment Policy (RIP) for the Isle of Wight Council’s pension fund has prompted mixed verdicts from campaigners.
Representing 1,000 staff at County Hall, union UNISON said the RIP would give contributors ‘greater influence’ over how their pension is invested, amid growing pressure to move away from fossil fuel and arms trade investment.
But activist group the Isle of Wight Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IWPSC) accused the local authority of appearing to take the ‘easy route’ of leaving policy to experts, ‘without due scrutiny’.
Both organisations previously criticised County Hall over a lack of debate around a motion calling for the ethical investment of its pension fund.
The RIP, authored by financial adviser Hymans Robertson, defines responsible investment as the responsible allocation, management and oversight of capital to create long-term value for clients and beneficiaries, leading to sustainable benefits for the environment and society.
It says the Isle of Wight Council Pension Fund Committee aims as a responsible investor to achieve positive ‘real-world’ change and believes this is often achieved through effective stewardship.
Stewardship is defined as the activities of investors in exercising the rights and responsibilities that come with asset ownership, with practices including voting on shares and engaging with company management.
However, the RIP also contains a section entitled ‘exclusions and controversial investments’.
The document says:
“The committee’s view is that exclusions should primarily be placed on assets where there is limited ability for the investment manager to have meaningful influence through stewardship or engagement options have been exhausted (e.g. a company whose only business is in mining thermal coal).”
Exclusions listed include companies directly involved with human rights abuses, those associated with significant deforestation or biodiversity loss or any government or company currently subject to legal sanctions by the UK.
Steve Milford, UNISON Isle of Wight local government branch treasurer, said:
“At a time when pension fund management is becoming more centralised, the RIP gives contributors greater influence over how their pension is invested.
“There is growing pressure from pension scheme members to move away from investments in fossil fuels and the arms trade and towards more responsible alternatives.”
Maggie Nelmes, chair of the IWPSC, said the group has ‘grave concerns’ about the council’s spending of ‘many thousands of pounds’ from its pensions pot on hiring actuaries to make its pensions fund investments policy. She said:
“We are concerned that the pensions fund committee voted at its meeting on 29th April to adopt the RIP produced by actuarial company, Hymans Robertson, lock, stock and barrel,”
“The council appears to be taking the easy route of leaving policy to experts, without due scrutiny.”
Chris Jarman, pension fund committee chair, told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) the policy document will guide the work of the committee and officers.
The Isle of Wight Council has been approached for comment.
Nutty Nellie should stick to feeding ducks instead of supporting a suspect organisation.
Pathetic.
So the isle of wight palestine solidarity campaign, consisting of one member on medication, a llama and a visiting eagle suggest the council has copped out by leaving it to experts, hello, I want my pension looked after by experts not based on considerations of a minority group who are supporting terrorists and rapists. Besides the council employees would soon kick off if their pensions went to deficit becase someone wanted all their money to be invested in vegan salad foods which produces no profits.
Ordinary Palestinians are not “terrorists and rapists”. They are people whose homes have been systematically destroyed and who have been denied the basic rights of food and medicine. I don’t agree with local political campaigning under that banner, any more than I approve of using local elections as a response to national politics, but have some humanity for goodness’sake…and get your facts right.
“council’s spending of ‘many thousands of pounds’ from its pensions pot on hiring actuaries”
it may be ‘many thousands of pounds’, but in terms of percentages (of the total value of the pension funds) it’ll be peanuts…
not really worth making a fuss over tbh
The Isle of Wight Palestine Solidarity Campaign is a local partisan group, affiliated to a national group which is not a charity, whose website is replete with partial ‘information’, anti-Israel rhetoric and sources and backers which have connections to terrorist groups, such as Middle East Monitor which is owned by Qatar, a country which funds Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Its views are one-sided, and it promotes propaganda and outright lies. To the IWPSC the attack on Israel of Oct 7th 2023 never happened. It’s funding is opaque and any claims as to where money comes from cannot be verified.
It seeks, by its very approach, to steer public opinion and feeds into the antisemitic and sectarian activities now bedevilling the country. It continually attempts to spread its influence into unrelated areas such as local council decision making.
If the pension funds are doing ok why change it
Who would prefer their pension investment to be administered by experts? Almost everyone I would think