Hackney’s stance unchanged as neighbouring council divests from firms linked to arms trade

Divestment protesters camped outside Hackney Town Hall in May. Photograph: Hackney Citizen

Hackney Council says it is focusing on ‘responsible investment’ after a neighbouring authority withdrew its pension fund’s stocks in businesses linked to the arms trade.

In August, Waltham Forest Council said it would pull investments from companies linked to arms production in line with its “updated” ethical investment policy.

But despite repeated calls to “divest” funds from businesses allegedly linked to war crimes in Palestine, Hackney Town Hall maintains that its hands are tied.

The decision falls on the council’s pensions committee, whose members are legally responsible for making sure the fund generates enough money to sustain the benefit.

While the pension fund does not directly own stocks or shares in individual companies, committee chair Cllr Kam Adams previously said there were passive investments worth £1.9m in “companies conducting business activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territories”.

In July, the committee stated it total exposure was £3.5m, representing 0.17 per cent of the fund’s value.

Organisers for the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) have alleged this is much higher at £30m.

The PSC was part of an encampment outside the Town Hall which began in May, urging the council to take a clear stance on the Israel-Hamas war and to pull investments from stocks in Israeli arms producer Elbit Systems Ltd.

Protesters and campaigners had vowed to stay put “until the council divests” but the camp eventually wound up in July.

In June, Mayor Caroline Woodley spoke in support of “ethical divestment” but made it clear that her powers were limited on the matter, which she acknowledged was “frustrating”.

“I call on the government to bring scrutiny and transparency, to support ethical investment, and to uphold international humanitarian law,” she said.

Speaking to the Citizen, a council spokesperson repeated previous claims that “any divestment solely on ethical grounds would be in breach of the Law Commission guidance”.

“Responsible investment remains at the forefront of the [pensions] committee’s agenda, and it will review the updated investment strategies of other local authorities once they have been published,” they added.