Agenda item

Dr Eldin Fahmy had registered to make a statement, but was unable to attend. His statement was delivered by Youssef Ibrahim. A copy of the statement will be appended to these minutes and a summary is set out below.

‘The APF Committee has not met since 3rd June and is now meeting after its member survey has closed. There has been no opportunity for public scrutiny and APF employees have had no opportunity for direct input.

Most APF members did not get a chance to have a say. APF Committee claim that is too costly and that they cannot email all members. But they could have asked employers to forward an invitation to current APF employees to take part in the email survey on an opt-in basis.

The launch was delayed many times. It seems this was due to serious concerns about bias in the draft question set. It is well-known the Committee supports arms investments, and that it intended to secure that outcome from the outset.

In its guidance:

APF state arms sales are almost exclusively to the ‘good guys’ - but fails to mention Israel here as an ally. It states that all conflicts harm civilians but fails to mention this is often intentional and egregious - as with Israel.

Turning to the questions themselves:

Q1 ‘Many’ is disputable when referring to arms industry employees. 4,000 jobs is a tiny proportion of the Avon workforce.

Q3 It is disputable that this sector plays a key role in the UK’s defence. Its products also put the UK at risk.

Q4 The focus on financial returns implies there will be a risk of significant material detriment is APF divests but no evidence is provided

We demand real accountability – it is members money they are playing with!’

Eileen Kay had registered to make a statement, but was unable to attend. Her statement was delivered by Michaela Wild. A summary is set out below.

She said that she felt that it was wrong that only 1 in 5 fund members would be able to take part in the survey regarding aerospace and defence investments. She stated that she was aware of only one person who had received the survey.

She called for the Committee to hold an open meeting to discuss the results of the survey and said that the member’s views must be listened to.

She said that the UN Independent International Commission has determined that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and that the Commission urges Israel and all States to fulfil their legal obligations under international law to end the genocide and punish those responsible for it.

She stated that the Avon Pension Fund has an opportunity to make a real change and must be transparent with the next parts of this process.

She said that the thought of anyone profiteering from this crisis was abhorrent.

Beth Cleeter addressed the Committee, a copy of her statement will be appended to these minutes and a summary is set out below.

‘I am speaking today as a member of the public whose deferred wages are in the Avon Pension Fund. I do not consent to my deferred wages being invested into the companies of weapons manufacturers.

I am concerned that only one in five members of the Avon Pension Fund will get the chance to have their say on such an important issue.  I also object to the wording of the survey as it is bias towards continuing with the status quo which is perpetuating war around the globe, genocide in Gaza and environmental destruction.

Members may not be fully informed of what they are agreeing to when reading “investments in aerospace and defence”. Perhaps a more accurate description of the companies we are investing in could be used in the survey question to members, for example “do you agree to your wages being invested into the companies of war profiteers?”

The genocide that Israel is committing against Palestinian’s is ensured by the continual supply of weapons from Western countries, such as the UK and its allies. Companies such as BAE Systems, General dynamics, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and others profit from the unconscionable suffering of our brothers and sisters across the world and have undue influence on our politicians which leads to more economic insecurity and inequality. It is not defence.

I cannot see how investment into these companies aligns with any ethical responsibility towards people or planet. I also object to the APF’s policy of engaging with companies and sectors known to be involved in war crimes, human rights violations and environmental destruction rather than complete exclusion and divestment.

Divestment works. Companies have redirected their production away from weaponry after losing contracts. Please offer our members an alternative that they can vote for. There are more ethical ways for them to get returns on their wages and to support the local economy. Other countries and municipalities have divested their portfolios away from the economy of murder and so can we.  Please use your authority to lead to something better.’

The Chair thanked the members of the public for their statements and explained that questions had been received from Dr Eldin Fahmy and Ahmed Hamoud, and that responses to those questions had been prepared and circulated. They will also be appended to these minutes online.

The Chair informed the Committee that they were due to have an informal discussion regarding the survey in October with a public meeting to follow in due course.