A COUNCIL has come under fire for investing £2.3 million in a multi-national tobacco company while promoting a number of anti-smoking initiatives.

Health charities have  accused Scottish Borders Council of sending out conflicting signals  over its pension fund's investment in the company whose cigarette brands include Benson & Hedges and Rothmans.

Sheila Duffy, chief executive of of ASH Scotland, said: "Local authorities, the police and fire service are all tasked with looking after people's well-being.

"This doesn't sit easily with investments in tobacco companies, who sell an addictive product that kills half of its long-term users.

"Yet while tobacco companies still try to recruit new generations of smokers, the numbers continue to decline. So removing all investments

from tobacco companies can make sense financially as well as morally."  

The equity holding in British American Tobacco is revealed in Scottish Borders Council Pension Fund's annual report and accounts for 2013/14.

A council spokesman admitted the authority had an "ongoing issue" dealing with its public health remit and its role as the administering authority for the pension fund.

He explained the investment would come under review next year.

The Newtown St Boswells-based local authority hosts the Borders Joint Health Improvement Team in conjunction with NHS Borders.

Councillor Catriona Bhatia, the authority 's depute leader for health, admitted she had been unaware of the extent of investment in the tobacco company.

But she said "socially responsible" investing was complex and a challenge for many local authorities who manage pension schemes.

A spokesman for the local authority acknowledged an "ongoing issue between the objectives of the council as the body providing a wide variety of public services, including a public health remit, and its role as administering authority for the Scottish Borders Council Pension Fund". 

He said: "As a Pension Fund administering authority, the council has an over-riding duty to both the scheme employers and scheme members to prioritise the financial stability of the fund and maximise the return on investments".

He said a review would consider whether it is possible to adopt "more explicit exclusions" for sectors that the pension fund will not invest in.