Agenda item

To answer any written questions about matters that are within the powers and duties of the Committee. The closing date/time for the receipt of questions is 10.00am on 24th February 2022.

Question 2.1 - Mr Brookes requested further information regarding the holdings that the fund had, and requested clarity on the headings, such as local market value, based market value, share par value, etc.   He asked if an explanation could be provided in relation to the terminology and the value of the actual holdings.  

The Chair explained that a response would be sought and would be provided in due course. 

Question 2.2 - Mr Brookes asked a question relating to divestment and if there was material investment risk such as stranded assets and if the fund were looking to divest.  He mentioned the moral dimension in terms of climate change and in terms of Gazprom in Russia investments.  Mr Brookes referred to the response provided that Brunel was going to set out clear expectations for its asset managers and was reviewing its companies and the climate stock.   He wished to know if as a client would the Committee press strongly for Brunel to disinvest from any companies which continue to explore for fossil fuel reserves, which was in disregard of the recommendations of the IEA as they recommended there should be no further fossil fuel exploration as it was not needed.  

The Chair explained that the issue relating to Russia would be dealt with later in the Committee’s agenda.  It was noted there were considerable time scales involved in stranded assets and in the investments, the fund took a very long term view of its investments and the returns over a number of years.  The Chair also recognised that some flexibility had to be given to fund managers in those areas.  The Chair accepted the points made with regard to the economic and moral issues that were at stake within fund management and particularly some of the minerals and extraction based industries.  

Question 3 - Penny Kent asked  a supplementary question about divestment on behalf of South West Action on Pensions, given that engagement was very unlikely to work with major fossil fuel companies when the core of their businesses is to extract and sell fossil fuels for financial gain and that since 2018, all major oil and gas companies had approved projects that were not consistent with the Paris goals,  would the pension committee therefore ask Brunel Pension Partnership to provide incontrovertible evidence that their policy of engagement is effective in altering the core business models of the oil giants that were set to destroy our planet. 

The Chair advised that a response would be provided in writing because it involved a commitment from Brunel on behalf of the 10 different funds.  It was noted that the response would also be circulated to all members of the Committee for information.  The Chair proceeded to explain that it was necessary to look at some of the investments because some may be holdings in what potentially could be stranded assets and oil exploration, but some of them did have a very positive direction of travel including    investment in renewables.  It was recognised there was course a phasing, as it would take a number of decades for oil to be replaced by renewables.  

Alan Mossman requested a copy of the response in relation to the previous question. 

Question 4.1 Alan Mossman stated that he hadn’t received an answer to the question about stranded assets, he felt there was nothing in the risk register that addressed stranded assets explicitly.  He wished to know what action the Committee would commit to ensure that it was explicitly included in the risk register that's used by both the County Pension Fund and used by Brunel in the risk register.

The Chair explained that members of the committee would be discussing the risk register during the meeting and members would have opportunity at that point to take onboard the point raised and to provide challenge to our officers.  In addition, Brunel would be asked to comment appropriately and a response would be sent in due course.

Question 4.2 Alan Mossman stated that in relation to the first paragraph and “protecting our interests through contributing to a more sustainable and resilient financial system which supports sustainable economic growth and a thriving society”.  He didn't believe there was time for the Chair to explain how he understood sustainable economic growth.  He requested a written response from the Chair detailing his understanding of this complex goal.    

The Chair noted the request and agreed to provide an answer in writing. 

Question 4.3 the supplementary question related to the fund understanding what member, as in those who were contributing, deferred and pensioners thought.  Mr Mossman felt the initial response was about how the fund had set out to tell members what the fund management think.  He explained that it lead him to assume that the fund had done nothing to find out what members think and asked the Chair if that' was not the case what was the answer to my question. 

The Chair explained that it had not been possible to hold an annual meeting during the course of the last couple of years for the reasons stated.   The AGM was a forum for any member of the fund to raise questions.  The Chair explained he was unable to pass comment on the 2019 AGM, as he was not appointed to his current position until 2020.   The Chair also added that all parties had the opportunity to engage at the AGM and committee meetings by submitting questions.