Agenda item

Elaine Pierpont addressed the Committee a summary of her statement is set out below.

A case made for divesting from suppliers to Israel is their illegal settlements.

·  If illegality is an argument then divest from suppliers to the UK as UK passed laws last month which break the Refugee Convention and International Law

·  If Europeans or others settling without regard to existing residents is an argument then it also applies to New Zealand, Australia, Canada, USA, and many other nations, in which case we would have to divest from their suppliers.

·  With no objective reason applying solely to Israel, such divestment is anti-Semitic.

A case made that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians

·  She referred to a Guardian article 3rd December 2023, which pointed out that Israel was dropping leaflets warning Palestinians to move - hardly the act of a nation committing genocide.

·  She referred to news reports that Egypt and Hamas effectively took it in turns to close the Rafah Crossing, thereby trapping Palestinians and raising the casualty rate.

·  This is a continuation of a policy going back decades.  She referred to a video clip she had seen made by a woman who grew up in Gaza in the 1950s, when it was still part of Egypt, in which she stated Arab nations wanted the Palestinians stuck in Palestine to be a problem for Israel.

An argument that it is, in fact, Hamas, who want to exterminate the Jews

·  She referred to the same video clip in which she said children were taught to hate Jews.

·  She referred to a statement by a Hamas leader shortly after the mass rape, murders, and kidnappings of 7th October 2023 in which he applauded the actions of the participants and said Hamas would do it again and again until there were no Jews left alive.  That is a declaration of genocide.

She concluded with a quote from Benjamin Disraeli "God treats the nations as the nations treat the Jews", and a warning that carrying out anti-Semitic divestments risks having the remaining investments perform badly. 

Dr Eldin Fahmy addressed the Committee a summary of his statement is set out below.

‘The Board make many contentious political judgements in their report about the claimed beneficial purposes of the arms trade. These are well beyond their remit. The claim that the arms trade protects us is not substantiated. The implication that thousands of jobs are at risk if APF divests is not credible. Sadly, business at UK arms manufacturers including in Bristol is booming.

The claim that arms investments protect the UK and NATO are contentious, unevidenced, and beyond the Board’s remit.  Whether arms investments protect the welfare of UK residents is a political judgement – and one which should properly be exercised by members.

We are witnessing a global arms race fuelled by arms companies for profit. If APF Board decide not to consult members, they will send a powerful message that they wish to facilitate this trade for political reasons, and that they do not value members views.

Instead, the Board must protect members’ interests by canvassing their views. The Board say there is no evidence of members’ support for divestment but acknowledge there is no evidence of members’ support for arms investments.

There is ample evidence of wider support for arms divestment. This is shown by support for divest motions by elected representatives across Bristol and N Somerset and beyond, and in local surveys of fund members in Devon and Wiltshire. APF Board present no evidence that their members’ views are likely to differ from those of the wider public.

Ultimately, this is about consumer choice. Pension funds customers should have a choice about how their deferred earnings are invested, and especially where there is controversy.

At a minimum, consultation must involve a comprehensive survey of members views using well-validated survey instruments. It also requires qualitative consultation with members and their representatives including trades unions. And it involves committing in advance to respecting the result of any rigorous consultation.’

Toni Mayo addressed the Committee a summary of her statement is set out below.

When I began my journey as a children’s social worker 18 years ago, and joined Avon Pension Fund two years later. I was young and idealistic. I knew that the system I was entering had problems, but I believed that we could change it by being caring and principled, and we could make children and their families safer in their homes. That we could support them to live dignified lives, free from harm and fear.

For almost 20 years, I have worked flat out this job. I have seen many of my contemporaries and those who came after me leave, crushed by the pain and injustice that we come across, feeling powerless within this system. The job has aged me and haunted me. But I do still feel like in a small way, I am making a difference, and I really do not know what else I would do.

Our terms and conditions have been attacked by austerity, and we have lost a lot of the limited benefits of being council social workers, but our pensions remain something worth having, and something worth defending.

So, there is a huge moral outrage for me, that the money I have earned by trying, tirelessly and at great personal cost, to keep children safe, is being used to fund the weapons that kill my brothers and sisters’ children abroad. That every day I work, where I find small satisfaction in what I achieve, despite the bureaucracy, workload and vicarious trauma, I am unwillingly contributing to genocide and war. I am unwillingly complicit in the slaughter of babies, children, and their families.

 In Gaza, eleven hundred people have been killed in the last 5 days, including four hundred children. I oppose this with every fibre of my being, as a social worker, as a mother, as a trade unionist and as a human being. I am dumbfounded, as well as appalled, as to how I am funding, with my deferred wages, something that I oppose so strongly.

I am clearly in the majority. My branch, B&NES Unison, along with other trade union branches for members of the pension fund across the region, has passed motions calling for our pension money to be divested from the arms trade. North Somerset and Bristol Councils have passed motions calling for their staff’s pension money to be divested from the arms trade. 

As well as immoral, it is completely unnecessary to invest pension money in the arms industry. We could see our money invested in Green industries and jobs.

This sector desperately needs investment, and Avon Pension Fund is in a position to do something hugely positive on an international scale. That way, our money could be used to contribute to protecting the climate and social justice, to improving life, and not to death. 

Dan Smart (UNISON South Glos) addressed the Committee a summary of his statement is set out below.

He said that union members were shocked and horrified that these investments were in place as part of the Fund. He added that he felt that pension funds should not be investing in arms at all and that he was not aware of any member who support such a decision

He stated that this was a great opportunity to make a meaningful difference and urged the Committee to support divestment from all Aerospace & Defence companies.

He concluded by encouraging the Fund to make more ethical investments.

Julia Thomas addressed the Committee a summary of her statement is set out below.

‘I’m a member of the Avon Pension Fund. I am here today, to request that the Committee take into account members’ views, and to ensure a rigorous and robust consultation regarding where our money is being invested.

I wish to argue for divestment from arms manufacturers because of their disastrous impact on the climate. The APF’s Investment Strategy Statement states that:

“By 2030, the Fund will divest from all developed market equity holdings in high-impact sectors that are not achieving net zero or aligning to achieve net zero by 2050. High-impact companies held in the portfolios will be monitored annually and divested before 2030 if they fail to demonstrate alignment.”

The production of weapons contributes to deforestation, biodiversity loss, and resource extraction.  Arms manufacturers thrive on war and conflict. The impact of armed conflicts causes significant environmental harm with disastrous consequences for ecosystems and the people and animals that depend on them.

The global military sector and its supply chain are estimated to account for 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing arms production would contribute to clean energy efforts and help reduce emissions.

If this Committee is to successfully achieve its ambitious and welcome climate objectives, it must actively consider the need to divest from arms companies.

And, just as the Committee conducted a consultation on whether to divest from companies due to their negative climate-related impact, I now urge you to do the same regarding the arms industry.’

Jane Samson addressed the Committee a summary of her statement is set out below.

‘We know that Avon Pension Fund invests thousands of pounds of our pension monies in arms companies. The Committee must seek a thorough consultation from its members about whether it should continue with these investments. As for me as a member of the Avon Pension Fund say I believe that investing in arms companies is contradictory to the Committee’s Strategic Statement requirements.

Though arms companies must comply with certain UK laws on where and who to sell to, implementation is weak and the loopholes are many. Arms companies are less scrutinised than other companies even though weapons used in conflicts and wars are often traceable. We know that weapons end up in volatile regions, war lords, authoritarian governments and conflict and war zones. Arms companies hide behind governments and do not take responsibility, like other corporations would be required to, for compliance with the human rights frameworks.

According to one estimate, by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the UK was the seventh largest exporter of major conventional weapons (behind the US, Russia, China). When asked by Amnesty International, 22 arms companies were unable to provide answers to how they comply with UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

The level of scrutiny, corporate responsibility and their lack of transparency has meant that there is next to no accountability of these companies. They make thousands of pounds of profit on their products; products that end up being used often against civil populations.

It is our responsibility to do everything we can to stop supporting, even if we do so indirectly, an industry that profits from violence and destruction.’

Fay Pafford addressed the Committee a summary of her statement is set out below.

I urge this Committee to ensure that a thorough and wide consultation is carried out with membersbefore the Fund considers investing further in arms companies.

The committee is not required to be driven solely by returns and the members views must be taken into account as to where they would like their money invested. I am sure if you ask the majority of members “would you like your money to be invested in arms manufacturing when we know that arms directly and significantly contribute towards wars, conflicts, human death and suffering and destruction of life and the planet,” most members will say divest for arms.

Arms manufactures are driven by profit and they benefit from prolonged conflicts and wars – for the simple reason that their products remain in demand. The production of advanced arms manufacturing has led to deadlier conflicts and wars that have become more and more difficult to resolve.

Avon Pension Fund, for example, invests in BAE systems. BAE has supplied weapons to Saudi Arabia which are used in the war on Yemen. These weapons have therefore contributed to the death and suffering of the Yemeni civilians.

Similarly, APF invests in Lockheed Martin (US), a company that makes F-35 jets, missiles and bombs which are supplied to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other conflict zones.

The use of these weapons has never led to anything good. Their use has only resulted in extreme human rights violations, violence, loss of life, displacement of people, and destruction of communities.

Surely, Responsible Investment Principles as stated in the Strategy Statement should not, cannot allow for investment in companies that directly contribute to global instability, violence and human suffering.

Loulou Brouard addressed the Committee a summary of her statement is set out below.

‘I’m here today to scrutinise Avon Pension Fund’s Investment Strategy Statement on Responsible Investing (RI) and to advocate for member consultation.

Paragraph 8.1 of the APF Investment Strategy Statement:

“APF invests in line with its Responsible Investing (RI) principles where it defines RI as the integration of Environmental, Social and (Corporate) Governance…”

Paragraph 8.2 - “We believe in investing responsibly to make a real world impact” - Are we talking positive impact or negative impact here? It doesn’t state so I’d like reassurance that APF’s commitment is to positive impact and not just impact.

Paragraph 8.3 - “APF’s approach is to integrate RI across its investment decision-making process for the entire portfolio.”

Does this decision making process, that is integrated across its entire portfolio, take account of the loss of livesin the pursuit of profits?

Does the committee consider that the fund is responsibly investedin an industry that profits directly from: War? Land mine dispensing machines? Killer AI technology? The bombing of schools, hospitals and homes? Environmental destruction? Does this sound like a list of responsible investing?

Paragraph 8.2 of the APF Investment Strategy Statement: “APF aims to be transparent and accountable” Have APF members been made aware that they may be financially contributing to the arms industry?

Or is there an assumption that APF members would a) be awarethat their money is being invested in weapons and b) consent to their money being invested in weapons and c) feel morally alignedwith investing in an industry, whose profits directly correlate with the increase of conflict and wars, mass deaths and suffering.

Should members be consulted on investments that directly result in

Loss of human life? Environmental devastation? War profiteering? The bombing of schools and hospitals and homes?

Or is it assumed that they already know and/or would find that perfectly acceptable?

I am an Avon Pension Fund member and you may not assume that I knew my pension was invested in the arms industry, nor may you assume that I am even vaguely okay with that.

I demand to be consulted on investments that will have repercussions of magnitude: socially, morally and environmentally. I demand to be consulted, if the investments I make or have made through Avon Pension Fund will leave blood on my hands.’

Eileen Kay addressed the Committee a summary of her statement is set out below.

‘I stand here today because the Avon Pension Fund is invested in an industry that profits from mass murder. Weapons produced by arms companies are used in war crimes, genocide, and the massacre of civilians.

Iin the past few days, we’ve witnessed some of the most savage attacks- families obliterated in their tents while they’re sleeping, people killed while waiting in breadlines. We’ve seen the most unspeakable images of parents clutching pieces of their children, of orphaned little ones screaming for their mothers and fathers who have been violently butchered. These horrors are the direct result of weapons.

We are watching the complete collapse of international law, setting a terrifying precedent for how wars will be waged in the future. People on a mass scale are horrified. Members of this very pension fund have had the same visceral reaction upon realising they are financially implicated in these atrocities.

Wars in Gaza, Sudan, Yemen, and the Congo would not be possible without the arms industry.

Beyond the unimaginable human cost, war is destroying our planet. The UK’s military-industrial sector emits more carbon emissions than 60 nations combined. Bombings destroy entire ecosystems, contaminate water, and leave landscapes toxic for generations.

Divesting from arms removes financial backing from companies that profit from death and pressures governments to change course. People deserve a say in where their pensions go. Institutions worldwide—universities, churches, city councils—are already divesting. The Avon Pension Fund must now consult its members.’

Roger Thomas addressed the Committee a summary of his statement is set out below.

He informed the Committee that he joined the Fund in 1979 and said like most members his role was to make people’s lives better.

He said that wars were no longer fought army -v- army and that so many more civilians were becoming innocent casualties. He added that no family should have to suffer like they are doing so now.

He stated that arms manufacturers were only interested in how much profit they can make and called for the Fund to carry out a full member consultation on the issue of divestment.

Youssef Ibrahim addressed the Committee a summary of his statement is set out below.

He demanded that the Fund divest from all arms companies and said that their involvement in acts of war, genocide and environmental damage must be considered in the strongest terms possible.

He said that members of the Fund must have the right to choose how their money is invested.

He called for the Fund to consider their climate obligations in line with the Paris Agreement and said that elected members were likely to see that communities will support divestment and would put pressure on them to make that decision.

The Chair, on behalf of the Committee, thanked all the public speakers for their statements.