The Avon Pension Fund, managing £6 billion for over 100,000 members across the former county of Avon, is approaching a critical decision. The fund’s committee is set to meet next week to vote on whether to divest from the aerospace and defence sector, which currently includes investments in companies linked to weapons production.
Over the past year, public sector employees in Bath, Bristol, and surrounding areas have voiced strong concerns about their pension funds supporting arms manufacturers involved in alleged human rights abuses by Israeli forces in Palestine. This grassroots campaign has brought the controversy to the forefront.
However, a recent member survey reveals a split opinion. Conducted in September with a statistically robust methodology, it found 42% of respondents supported divestment, while 47% favored maintaining current investments in aerospace and defence. Notably, women and those under 55 showed stronger support for divestment, contrasting with men and members over 55 who largely opposed the move.
READ MORE: 765 Yeovil Homes at Risk Following Judicial Review Approval
READ MORE: NHS Leaders Urged to Demand Developer Contributions for GP Funding in Bridgwater
Advocacy groups like Bristol Palestine Solidarity Campaign argue the nearly equal split does not constitute a clear mandate to continue funding the arms industry. Legal counsel reinforces this view, stating that any decision involving financial consequences for ethical reasons requires a broad consensus among members to be valid.
The Local Pension Board, which advises the committee, discussed this issue on December 3. Committee chair Toby Simon acknowledged significant support for divestment but emphasized the lack of majority backing. “We must listen to the strong minority, particularly among working-age members, even without a majority,” he said.
Several local councils, including Bristol City Council and North Somerset Council, have formally called for divestment, urging the fund to stop investing in companies producing weapons reportedly used in conflicts such as Gaza. Personal testimonies add weight to these appeals—children’s social worker Toni Mayo expressed her distress at inadvertently funding violence through her pension contributions.
Currently, the fund holds approximately £18 million (0.3% of total assets) in 20 aerospace and defence companies. Most sales from these companies are directed to the UK, NATO, and Ukraine, with some linked to Israel. These holdings are part of a passive equity pool known as the Brunel Fund, aligned with the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate action, rather than direct investments.
Financially, divesting would not entail loss of profits but instead involve about £1 million in additional administrative costs annually. This expense stems from the need to create a new investment pool excluding the aerospace and defence sector. Costs could decrease if other pension funds join in divestment efforts.
The Avon Pension Fund already excludes companies involved in controversial weapons like cluster munitions and those violating UN human rights standards. Notably, Lockheed Martin and RTX are excluded.
The upcoming committee meeting on December 12 at Bath Guildhall will be decisive. As the fund weighs ethical concerns against financial and legal constraints, the outcome will significantly impact how public pension funds address complex moral issues related to their investment portfolios.