Agenda item

Councillor Johnson (as Chair) advised that he had agreed to receive a deputation at the meeting from Sheila Guhadasan representing the Brent & Harrow Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC).  The Chair welcomed Sheila Guhadasan to the meeting along with the other representatives from the Brent & Harrow PSC attending in support, who advised that the deputation was seeking an update on progress with the Council’s review of investments under the UN’s Principles for Responsible Investment following the presentation of their petition divesting for Palestine at the Full Council meeting in September 2024.

In addressing the meeting, Sheila Guhadasan began by advising that the original petition had now attracted over 2000 signatures with the situation in Gaza and the West Bank remaining critical for Palestinians despite a fragile ceasefire and the deputation calling on the Sub Committee, as well as the Council, to recognise what were felt to be their legal and moral responsibilities and join the growing number of Councils, public bodies and institutions divesting for Palestine.

Referring to statements issued by the United Nations, Amnesty International and other reputable bodies regarding the impact of what those in support of the deputation and petition regarded as genocidal acts being committed by Israel in relation to their occupation of Gaza and the West Bank in violation of international law, it was pointed out these statements were also supported by rulings from the International Court of Justice and warrants of arrest being issued against Israel’s Prime Minister and former defence minister.

With UN experts having issued a statement demanding that states and companies stop arms transfers to Israel, and that financial institutions (including banks and pension funds) should cease investing in arms companies supplying Israel in order to avoid potential repercussions for complicity it was pointed out that, despite engagement with those institutions by human rights organisations over many years, it had not been possible to deliver any change in behaviour, supporting the need for more direct action.

Having previously called on the Council to consider divesting from companies complicit in Israel’s stance against the Palestinians, Sheila Guhadasan advised that the Local Government Association, had recently published an important new legal opinion (January 2025) on the ability of Pension Funds to take 'non-financial factors' into account when making investments decisions, which it was pointed out had included ethical considerations.

In terms of wider action, it was pointed out that the Brent and Harrow PSC had also been working with Trade Unions in support of their divestment campaign, including Brent National Education Union and UNISON as a recognised partner.  In addition, reference was made to actions being taken by other local authorities with the example of Tower Hamlets (following a UNISON led deputation) passing a motion declaring their intent to “divest all funds away from companies who deal in arms” alongside conducting a “complete audit of how all pension funds are used, and where any funds are invested” and other councils also making public commitments to divest including Bristol, Lewisham, Islington and Waltham Forest.

Highlighting that the deputation represented a shared call for ethical divestment by many, including environmental campaigners, Sheila Guhadasan ended by outlining what she felt to be the clear moral and legal basis for the specific actions identified.  As a result the deputation was calling on the Sub Committee:

(1)  To ensure that Brent Council published a full list of its direct and indirect investment holdings without delay for transparency.

(2)  Whilst understanding that the Council’s review of investments had so far shown that they were in line with the UN Principles for Responsible Investment (UN PRI), it was felt that the UN PRI were not specific enough with the Council therefore once again asked to make an immediate commitment to not invest in companies supplying Israel with weapons and military technology used in violations of human rights, whether directly or indirectly.

(3)  To ask that the Council conduct a review of investments to ensure compliance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which were more meaningful and less vague than the UN PRI.

(4)  To ask, whilst understanding that divestment was a long term process, that the Council make an immediate public commitment to begin divestment from arms companies supplying weapons used in human rights abuses as an important first step, as Tower Hamlets and other councils had done.

(5)  Whilst aware that the London Collective Investment Vehicle (CIV) pooled fund was looking at creating an ethical fund with strong exclusion criteria (PEPPA Value fund), to ask that Brent used its position as a member to urge London CIV to ensure the fund did not contain investments in companies enabling human rights abuses and divests its existing funds from such companies.

(6)  To ask the Council to commit to providing regular meetings and updates for Brent & Harrow PSC as part of an ongoing conversation.

In summing up, Sheila Guhadasan felt it important to recognise Brent’s position in being one of the most diverse boroughs in London and the opportunity now available in seeking to support the divestment campaign to demonstrate the importance in the way its values relating to equality, diversity, inclusion, justice and community cohesion were being upheld.

Having thanked Sheila Guhadasan for presenting the petition, the Chair then invited Amanda Healy as the Council’s Deputy Director Investment & Infrastructure, to respond.

In responding, Amanda Healy began by thanking Sheila Guhadasan for bringing the concerns of those in support of the deputation and petition to the Sub Committee’s attention and for their patience whilst the Council worked through the matters raised.  Referring to the UN Principles for Responsible Investment, it was pointed out these provided a comprehensive framework for incorporating environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors into the Council’s and Fund’s investment decisions, ensuring that it was possible to fulfil their fiduciary duty while promoting sustainable and responsible investment practices. The need was also noted for the fund’s investment strategy to prioritise reliable financial returns and risk management in order to meet the obligations of the Pension scheme to its members.

The opportunity was also taken to highlight that the Scheme Advisory Board (SAB) statement published in September 2024 had emphasised that administering authorities may only consider non-financial factors where these would not lead to significant financial detriment and where they would have the support of the scheme beneficiaries. It was therefore pointed out that, whilst ongoing, the conduct of an audit of investments in line with these principles would allow the Council and Fund to balance these financial imperatives with the commitment to responsible investment, ensuring that it was possible to consider a wide range of ESG issues in the relevant decision-making process.

In summing up, the Sub Committee was reminded of the hard work being undertaken to balance this ethical responsibility with the fiduciary duty to ensure the fund performed well in providing long-term, stable returns for those people who relied on it based on a diversified investment strategy with the main approach being to invest through passive and tracker funds (due to the low costs of implementation) and assurance also provided of the work ongoing with the London CIV regarding their approach towards responsible investing.

Having concluded the deputation, the Chair thanked for Sheila Guhadasan for her contribution along with those attending in support of the deputation and advised that any further update would need to be considered following completion of the audit of investments referred to in response to the deputation.