Row over bid to stop Greater Manchester pension fund investing in fossil fuel industries

Green councillors have failed in a bid to get Trafford Coincil to request Greater Manchester Pension Fund (GMPF) withdraw its investments from fossil fuel industries - known as ‘divestment’. The Labour-controlled authority voted down a motion by Coun Geraldine Coggins calling on the trustees of the GMPF to ‘stop pumping money into the dirtiest industries in history’.

Eight other authorities in the city region - Bolton, Bury, Rochdale, Oldham, Stockport, Salford and Wigan - have all called for divestment. However, Tameside council, which has 11 councillors on the 20-strong board of trustees and now Trafford, have not. Addressing last night’s (October 16) full council meeting, Coin Coggins said: “The pension has about five to six per cent of its funds invested in Shell, BP and other fossil fuel giants.

“The amount of money [invested] has gone up from about £1bn in 2019 to £1.3bn today. [Five years ago], the council agreed these funds were likely to become stranded assets with 80pc of them being kept in the ground in order to prevent runaway climate change. So this motion asks for some real change and some leadership. The GMCA’s 2038 net zero goal does not extend to the pension fund. The pension fund intends to be pumping money into the dirtiest industries in history until 2050.”

READ MORE: New leader of scandal-hit council appointed after week of resignations and chaos

And she raised concerns that the former chief executive of Tameside council who resigned recently over failing children’s services was still heading up the GMPF. She added: “We must ask the pension fund to move in line with rest of Greater Manchester and adopt the 2038 target. We also ask that future versions of our carbon neutral action plan acknowledge that Trafford’s public money is bankrolling the fossil fuel industry.”

The argument against her motion was led by Coun Ben Hartley. He said: “To try to force the hand of pension fund trustees to achieve our political aims on the climate emergency is wrong. The trustees’ duty is to ensure the pension fund is invested in the best financial interests of the scheme members.

“This is the fiduciary duty and the trustees owe this to the scheme members and the scheme employers as a whole. Non-financial matters can be considered, but only where they would not lead to significant detriment.”

Conservative opposition group leader Coun Nathan Evans also opposed the motion. He said: “I have knocked on a lot of doors. And not once has anyone said to me ‘I’d like to divest from fossil fuels in the GM pension fund. They ask about potholes, bike rides, child care, all the things that we should be dealing with. I think it’s incumbent on us all to stay in our lane. This is beyond our pay grade.

“We cannot berate companies, because the unintended consequences can be quite drastic. I’m sure you’ve never considered that both Shell and BP are probably aware that by 2050 there’s going to be no [fossil fuel] cars. They’re putting £25bn into the UK for renewables and BP are putting £18bn in. So we have to be truly careful what we do and what we say.”