AS with many a clever plan, the idea of investing public sector pension funds in reforestation will make many people wonder: why didn’t we think of this before? That reaction might be even more pronounced when considering the idea of merging Scotland’s 11 local government pension funds into one, with potential for transforming the way public infrastructure projects are funded.
Inevitably, questions arise. As regards the first idea, fund contributors will want to know about levels of risk and yield. Some might also discern a somewhat artful way of meeting the Scottish Government’s tree-planting target, which has been falling short.
But others might support investing in the environment and associated jobs. Ethics and investors’ returns rarely make the best soulmates and when, in recent times, Scottish council pension funds have been decried for investing in the likes of tobacco, fracking, fossil fuels, weapons, and private finance initiatives linked to offshore tax havens, they have adduced a legal obligation to maximise retirement income.
Coming with the implication that the source of profit is immaterial, campaigners have called this unconscionable and a dereliction of responsibility, not least when investments run counter to stated public policies.
Regarding the second idea, as with any move towards centralisation, questions arise about local accountability and losing the current system of democratic governance. However, there are possible benefits that make the idea tempting. As trade union Unison points out, the multiplicity of private fees would be cut, allowing greater investment in job-creating projects. The move could also improve scrutiny of investment decisions, and refocusing these could benefit, for example, affordable housing programmes, which campaigners say would bring solid returns, as well as again creating jobs.
Few areas of finance come with greater responsibility than pension funds. They are emphatically not to be trifled with. But it’s conceivable that they could be used responsibly to benefit the economy and the environment. Perhaps it’s time to consider such an idea.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel