The Avon Pension Fund, managing £6 billion for 135,000 mainly public sector members across the former county of Avon, has voted to continue its investments in the aerospace and defence sector following a member survey that revealed divided opinions. The fund, which was the first in the UK to survey its members about divesting from arms-related companies, had been facing pressure to withdraw from firms implicated in the arms trade, especially those linked to Israeli military actions in Palestine.
On December 12, the Avon Pension Fund committee convened at Bath’s Guildhall to decide the future of its £18 million investment spread across 20 aerospace and defence companies. Public demonstrators filled empty council seats with images of children affected by conflict, imploring the committee to divest. However, councillors expressed concerns about the legality of divesting without sufficient member support.
Legal advice given to the committee emphasized that any decision to divest based on non-financial grounds must not pose “significant financial risk and financial detriment” and must have clear member backing. While estimated additional administrative costs of just under £1 million were considered not significant compared to the fund’s £30 million annual management cost, the committee concluded that the survey results did not demonstrate enough member support to justify divesting.
READ MORE: Balancing Somerset GP Funding and Affordable Housing: A Delicate Challenge
READ MORE: Autistic Man, 25, Dies After Balcony Fall Following Argument with Carer
The September survey indicated widespread concern—74% of respondents worried that defence sector products could harm civilians. Nonetheless, only 42% favored divestment, while 47% preferred to maintain investments, and 11% remained undecided.
Councillor Fi Hance, a Green Party representative, expressed personal disappointment but stressed the importance of respecting legal constraints despite disagreeing with the outcome. Conversely, Liberal Democrat councillor John Leach questioned the survey’s objectivity and supported divestment.
During the meeting, five public speakers, including fund members, urged divestment. One highlighted that the 42% support was significant, especially among women and younger members under 45, implying the membership is ethically divided. Another poignant speaker shared images of a young family member killed in conflict to underscore that legality does not equal ethics.
Ultimately, the committee voted 8-2 to maintain investments in the defence sector but agreed to record the strength of member views and share them with the Local Pension Partnership Investments (LPPI). LPPI, which Avon Pension Fund is joining as part of government reforms, will use this feedback to shape its investment policies.
Vice chair George Leach and John Leach voted against maintaining investments. The two Green councillors, while voting to continue investment, voiced their bitter disappointment in the survey result, stating the committee cannot override legal requirements.
Councillor Joanna Wright acknowledged the ethical dilemmas but accepted the survey did not meet the legal threshold to alter investment policy. Councillor Hance extended gratitude to campaigners for their passionate involvement.
Committee Chair Toby Simon summarized the decision as a careful balancing act of member views, fiduciary duty, legal advice, and financial considerations within a complex regulatory framework. He reiterated the fund’s commitment to consider all stakeholder opinions seriously and noted the survey’s robust methodology despite its 9.5% response rate, which exceeded expectations and was weighted to accurately represent member demographics.