A BID to stop one of the biggest publicly run pension schemes in the world based in Scotland from continuing investment in arms firms has failed.
The Glasgow City Council-administered Strathclyde Pension Fund has been criticised after it emerged two years ago it had investments worth £83 million in 11 of the 20 companies with the biggest global involvement in arms manufacture.
The fund which local authority workers across the former Strathclyde region are members of is estimated to have £189 million invested in various arms companies.
Scotland's largest local authority pension scheme had shares worth £19.6 million, as of December 2014 in the top two arms-producing and military services companies alone, Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of Trident nuclear weapons, and Boeing.
As of two years ago, the pension scheme had assets of more than £13.9 billion, paid 70,000 pensioners and had a further 130,000 members either paying into the fund or waiting to retire from 12 local authorities, including Glasgow, plus over 200 other large and small employers.
SNP group leader on Inverclyde council Chris McEleny made the call for a ban on arms investments in a letter to Ian Gow the convener of the Strathclyde Pension Fund Committee.
He said: "I have recently been contacted by constituents who have raised concerns that the Strathclyde Pension Fund invests in worldwide arms companies as part of its investment strategy.
"I am sure you can understand that there are many people that do not believe that this type of investment is within the spirit of the fund's Responsible Investment Strategy.
"As you are aware there has been a change in political leadership across the region and I am hopeful that this will be reflected in future investments ensuring that the scheme makes ethical investments that support the wider fund."
He hoped that the fund managers would ensure that fund growth is "not on the back off profits generated by arms sales, many of which may be used in conflicts around the world."
But Richard Keery, investment manager of the fund said it was "unable to support calls for divestment".
He also said it did not hold information "that would allow us to identify which countries these companies [the fund invests in] sell arms to".
He said the fund's postion was that it gets regular calls from lobby groups to divest from one sector or another – fossil fuels, tobacco and defence in particular.
The fund's position was that disinvestment or screening out of individual sectors has never been part of SPF strategy as this "restricts investment opportunity, tends to increase volatility and may impair investment returns".
"Divestment based on a subjective, ethical viewpoint is not permissible and potentially subject to legal challenge in the context of a fund which is investing for the purpose of paying pensions liabilities to its members. The effectiveness of disinvestment is also questionable as it reduces investor ability to engage and influence," says the SPF position.
Mr McEleny said he was "disappointed" that the scheme is "not listening" to concerns.
"There is a growing consensus that people are not comfortable with this type of investment. Members of the Scheme that I have spoken to do not want their pension pot used to invest in Arms Dealers across the world.
" I would urge the elected committee that manages the scheme to challenge this and ensure that the pension pot grows to pay future pension liabilities on the back of an progressive ethical investment policy, not investing in arms dealers."
A Glasgow City Council spokesman said: "The reasons for refusal are given in the response you referred to."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article