The UK’s City of Westminster Pension Fund has delayed selecting a pillar under its London CIV’s responsible investment (RI) framework while seeking clarification on exclusions affecting defence companies and the interpretation of international human rights standards.
Phil Triggs, tri-borough director of treasury and pensions, told IPE that the committee considered London CIV’s three-pillar framework on 20 October but had not selected a pillar or approved an updated RI statement.
London CIV is Westminster Pension Fund’s selected Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) investment pool.
“In particular, the committee raised questions about exclusions affecting defence companies, given their importance to national security, and the interpretation of international human rights standards,” Triggs told IPE.
Formal approval of the revised statement is expected in January 2027, he confirmed.
Triggs stressed, however, that the timetable was part of a planned review and did not indicate that Westminster considered its existing policies incompatible with London CIV’s framework.
“Rather, we are working with the pool to establish how its proposed arrangements can best accommodate the Fund’s existing principles, investment strategy and fiduciary responsibilities,” he said.
The fund’s existing Conflict and Human Rights Policy would remain an important consideration in developing the revised RI statement, Triggs added.
“Our view is that selecting a particular pillar should be the consequence of a properly considered investment strategy, not an objective in itself,” he told IPE.
IPE understands that London CIV has been asked to provide further information on stewardship and voting arrangements, including the role of the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum (LAPFF). This will help inform Westminster’s revised RI strategy.
Triggs said Westminster would determine its own investment strategy and RI principles, with London CIV responsible for implementation within the pooling framework.
“Our priority remains securing members’ pensions through financially sound, legally compliant and appropriately governed investment decisions,” he said.
The review comes amid wider concerns about the balance of control between local government pension funds and central government under the new Pension Schemes Act.
Questions about how London CIV would put Westminster’s RI priorities into practice also arose at a September workshop, according to notes included in the October committee papers.
An October pension fund committee report proposed turning Westminster’s RI policy into a “shorter, strategic statement”, with implementation covered by London CIV’s policies, mandates and investment processes.
The City of Westminster announced the adoption of its conflict and human rights policy in March. It described the policy as an “evidence-based framework” for assessing investments linked to conflict-affected areas and serious human rights risks, with an emphasis on engagement with companies.
The policy was adopted before the Conservative Party took control of the council from Labour following May’s election.
The review also follows the government’s intervention on conflict-related divestment. In a 12 May letter to the Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Board, Alison McGovern MP, then minister of state for local government and homelessness, said that “decisions on boycotts, divestment and sanctions are matters of UK foreign policy and are for central government, not local authorities”.
She said it was inappropriate for local authorities to adopt investment policies that went beyond or differed from UK government sanctions or foreign policy positions. However, they could still change investment strategies for other reasons, particularly to meet their fiduciary duties to scheme members.
