The Lewisham Pension Investment Committee met to discuss a range of issues, including divestment from companies operating in occupied territories, the annual report, and a general update on the pension fund. Representatives from the Lewisham Divest for Palestine campaign addressed the committee, and the committee agreed to prepare a report on using the UN list of companies complicit in human rights abuses as a guide for divestment. The committee also agreed to a referral response to a motion on divestment that was tabled at a council meeting in July.

Divestment Campaign

Representatives from the Lewisham Divest for Palestine campaign, Edward Sutton and John McGrath, addressed the committee to advocate for the divestment of pension funds from companies involved in what they described as Israel's regime of settler colonialism, apartheid, and occupation . They argued for a moral and legal obligation to act, referencing a recent United Nations Commission of Inquiry finding that states have a legal obligation to use all reasonably available means to stop the genocide in Gaza.

The campaign put forward three demands:

• A clear commitment to divestment based on robust exclusionary criteria, such as the UN Human Rights Office list.
• A commitment to engage with unions and the campaign on the members survey.
• A commitment to community accountability, with a representative attending the next community meeting.

Edward Sutton cited a statement from Elsev, which said:

where a change in the policies is communicated to London Civ, we stand ready to support the necessary action our partner funds wish to take.

John McGrath highlighted that Southwark Council had recently announced it would remove investments in companies listed by the UN.

During a question and answer session, Councillor John Muldoon asked what lessons could be learned to encourage the committee to look below the surface in proposed investments. John McGrath responded that community engagement and listening to residents was very important.

Councillor Liam Shrivastava asked for the campaign's opinion on the importance of the member survey. John McGrath said that the council often did not get surveys right because it had not engaged with the community to understand what questions to ask. He added that the campaign wanted explicit questions about Palestine in the survey.

Councillor James Royston raised the issue of scale, noting that while some companies were small and easy to divest from, others, like Alphabet (Google) and Amazon, were massive. He asked what could be done to affect those companies in particular. Edward Sutton responded that divestment was a much easier action than boycott, and that there were plenty of other companies that could be invested in.

Councillor Mark Ingleby appealed for help with the process of divestment, particularly with regard to pooling from 31 March. He said that if enough boroughs coalesced around mandates, managers like Storebrand could be very effective at pulling out the bad behaviour of people at Palantir¹ and others.

Councillor Sian Eiles said that she and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the London CIV² would meet to discuss how to move forward.

Councillor Liam Shrivastava asked why the council could not use the UN list, as Southwark was doing. Councillor Sian Eiles responded that creating a new exclusion policy for the PEPA fund³ required agreement from the other funds. She added that she was happy to put the UN list on the table as an option.

Councillor Liam Shrivastava suggested that the committee agree to adopt the UN list as a general guiding principle. Councillor Sian Eiles said that she was not against it, but that she needed to consider the timings of the meeting.

The committee agreed to revisit the discussion later in the meeting and to consider other options. Councillor Sian Eiles suggested that the committee look at the UN list as the lead option and move forwards on a proper decision paper from there.

Referral Response to Motion

Catherine Nid, Director of Finance, presented a report responding to a motion referred to the committee by the council on 16 July 2025. The motion concerned divestment from companies operating in occupied territories and with human rights abuses.

Catherine Nid said that the practice had been to disclose all equity and corporate credit exposures, and that this information was published on the Pension Fund website and updated quarterly. She added that the exposure to companies on the UNHCR list was £6.3 million, which is 0.0033% of the fund.

Catherine Nid noted that the process to draft the member survey had been thorough, and that it was not appropriate to ask the trade unions for their input into the questions.

Councillor Tauseef Anwar asked what sort of input the committee was going to give to the London CIV if they asked for recommendations on a more robust exclusionary framework for PEPA. He also asked for a strict timeline, given that the genocide is happening right now . He asked what alternative options were being considered if divestment of a single name was not possible, and whether future disclosures would include ESG or human risk flags.

Councillor Sian Eiles responded that the point of creating a more robust exclusionary framework was so that any company that violated that framework would then have grounds to be excluded. She added that she spoke with other pension chairs on a daily basis about this and other ESG related issues, but that it took a long time to get everybody on the same page.

Councillor Sian Eiles said that a trade union representative could attend the meeting as pension board members had a right to be there, and trade unions were on the board.

Councillor Liam Shrivastava asked what kind of criteria and instructions could be put out to reduce holdings in Israeli banks and the state of Israel. He also asked whether it was appropriate to consult ordinary members ahead of putting out the member survey.

Catherine Nid responded that all equity holdings were through different funds, and that the committee was working with the London CIV to create an exclusionary framework. She added that the committee needed to understand what was important to its members, and that the survey would ask specific questions and general questions.

Councillor John Muldoon emphasised the role of the pension board in scrutinising.

The committee agreed to the recommendations in the report.

Annual Report and Draft Statement of Accounts 2024/25

Catherine Nid presented the draft London Borough of Lewisham's Pension Fund Annual Report. She noted that the supporting financial statements would be considered by the Audit and Risk Committee in November 2025, and then presented to full council with the annual statement of accounts in November 2025.

Councillor John Muldoon noted that the contents page was not mirrored by the contents of the report. Catherine Nid apologised for the slightly confusing numbering, but said that the content was there as intended.

Councillor Mark Ingleby asked whether it was general practice for pension investment committees to sign up to the UK Stewardship Code⁴. Ross MacLeod of Hymans Robertson responded that some clients took the view that if the underlying managers were signatories to the code, that was a very good start. He added that it would be a material exercise to become signatories to the code, and that it would need quite a bit of thought.

The committee agreed to the recommendations in the report.

General Update Report

Catherine Nid presented a general update report. She noted that the committee continued to assess its compliance against the Pension Regulator's General Code of Practice, and that the dashboard integration was progressing well. She also noted that the pension administration team had processed over 12,500 annual benefit statements by the deadline of 31 August.

Catherine Nid drew the committee's attention to paragraphs 220 to 222, and said that new regulations had been published, and that in the event that all 20 changes were enacted and required to be backdated, there would be a vast amount of work for the pension administration team to complete.

Councillor Sian Eiles asked whether enough time had been dedicated to the upcoming changes. Catherine Nid said that she would include that in the training mix.

The committee noted the contents of the report.

Communication Policy Statement Report

Catherine Nid presented the Communication Policy Statement report. She said that the policy was reviewed every three years, and that there had been minor amendments to ensure that the information was up to date.

The committee agreed to the recommendations in the report.