Agenda item

Question A – Alan Wells, of Chatham, asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:

"I am asking this question on behalf of myself as part of Medway United Nations Association. I am sure the Council would agree with me that the appalling scenes we have witnessed in the Middle East have been shocking to witness.

The UK is one of the world's top arms exporters, with 2025 seeing a record-breaking £20 billion+ in defence export deals.

The Kent Pension Fund (KPF) operates under the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) funds. Funds are invested in a number of companies supplying weapons or military technology.

The Kent Pension Fund manages pensions for Medway Council employees. These investments total hundreds of millions of pounds across the LGPS.

The Kent County Council (KCC) pension fund has faced scrutiny for investments in companies implicated in international arms trades, including those linked to conflicts in Yemen and Gaza. The LGPS funds, including Kent's, by investing in companies, have enabled violations of international law.

Waltham Forest Council's Pension Committee formally confirmed on 25 March 2026 that it can divest from companies linked to the international arms trade without any material detrimental impact on its financial position.

When explosive weapons are used in populated areas, civilians account for roughly 90% of all casualties.

My question is this: There have been calls to move towards more ethical investments, including divesting from potential military ties, with campaigns highlighting the ethical implications of using public sector pensions for these investments. Would the Council consider using Waltham Forest Council's example and commit to a gradual and proactive divestment, from some of those companies recklessly supplying weapons, as part of the international arms trade, resulting in widespread civilian casualties?”

In response, Councillor Maple said that unlike other councils across the country, Medway Council was part of a wider pension fund, in this case the Kent Pension Fund. These structures would be looked at as part of Local Government Reorganisation. Medway Councillor, Mark Jones, who had significant pensions expertise and knowledge, both from his civil service and trade union background, was ensuring that those conversations were happening.

The Pension Fund had recently started an investment sub-group, which had held its first meeting and would be meeting again the following month. Councillor Jones had attended both the main Committee and the sub-group. Various aspects of pension fund investments had been considered previously, such as environmental issues or tobacco and most recently the situation raised by the question. There was a statutory responsibility for the funds to be managed carefully for those who had given service to local government in Medway and Kent. This management needed to take into account issues such as war, defence investment and the environment. Councillor Maple was confident that the sub-group, which was looking at these ethical issues, would take that into account in due course.

Alan Wells asked the following supplementary question:

‘Several councils had passed symbolic motions asking their pension fund representatives to raise ethical investment concerns with the administering authority. The motions did not bind the pension fund, but expressed the council's position and asked Its representative to advocate for the change. Would Council consider moving forward a similar symbolic motion?’

In response, Councillor Maple said he had answered a similar question, at a previous meeting, about bringing forward of motions. Political Groups were responsible for bringing them forward and each political group had their own methodologies for deciding which issues or motions came forward. There had recently been alterations to how motions and numbers of motions would come forward. Each of the four Groups had heard the issues raised and would give them due consideration when bringing forward motions in due course.