Norfolk Pension Fund’s £44m tobacco investments under spotlight

PUBLISHED: 06:30 24 September 2012 | UPDATED: 10:43 24 September 2012

Councillors will debate Norfolk Pension Fund's investments in tobacco companies at a meeting tomorrow.

Councillors will debate Norfolk Pension Fund's investments in tobacco companies at a meeting tomorrow.


Managers of a pension fund for thousands of Norfolk County Council workers are recommending they keep investing in tobacco companies, even though the authority will take on responsibility for public health from next year.

The Norfolk Pension Fund, which has more than 66,000 members and covers Norfolk County Council workers and 134 other employers, including Norwich City Council, has a total exposure to the tobacco sector of £44m.

While that is only a small amount of the £2.1bn assets of the fund, the fact the county council will, from next April, take on responsibility for public health, including encouraging people to quit smoking, has sparked a debate over whether it should invest in tobacco firms.

It emerged in the summer that the county council had £25.9m invested directly in cigarette companies, which led Norfolk County Council leader Derrick Murphy, chairman of the pension fund committee, to request a review as to whether it was the right thing to do.

That review has been carried out, showing millions more is tied up in other investments which have links to tobacco companies and, at a meeting tomorrow, members of the pension committee will be advised not to pull out of investing in such assets.

Fund managers will warn them that the law is unclear on the issue and excluding them could lead to a costly legal challenge.

And the report adds: “The financial impact of excluding any stock or sector would fall on the employers that participate in the scheme, and in the case of the local authorities who participate may ultimately fall on the local taxpayer.”

Members of the pensions committee are recommended not to exclude tobacco holdings, but to review the situation when the legal position becomes clearer.

The committee is also advised to inform the Department for Communities and Local Government, as regulator of the Local Government Pension Scheme, that it has considered the matter due to the potential conflict between the council’s public health responsibilities.

Mr Murphy said: “I wouldn’t prejudge in anyway, what we are going to decide. This committee is one of the most independent minded of all the committees, so I don’t think you can second guess what they are going to decide.

“I had asked for this review because I wanted the committee to be able to look at the pros and cons as to what we can and can’t do.

“I don’t smoke and, as far as I am concerned on the public health side, we want smoking cessation to be a key target because of the public health ramifications.

“But if you are worried about public health, one of the biggest public health issues is obesity, so should we not invest in any food companies?”

Alan Waters, deputy leader of Norwich City Council, and another member of the pensions committee, said: “We are always careful to look at good governance of the pension scheme and it is right and legitimate that we discuss this issue.

“It does demonstrate the tension between ethical investments and the financial need to get the best return for the people in the pension scheme.”

But anti-smoking group ASH said questioned the ethics of investing in tobacco at the same time as councils promote promote public health.

And Martin Dockrell, director of research and policy at the campaign group said the long-term future of the tobacco industry may mean it is no longer such a sound investment.

He said: “Although the tobacco industry has been making fantastic returns for pension funds, there is no guarantee it will continue to do so, with tax on cigarettes going up, tighter regulation and the European Union looking at introducing plain packaging.

“Pension fund managers will say they have a financial duty to get the best return for pension holders, but in fact they have to act in the best interests of the pension holders and the taxpayers, which is not quite the same thing. They have no obligation to invest in tobacco companies.”

The meeting of the pension committee will take place at County Hall at 10am tomorrow.


  • The council are Hypocrites !. Do as we say, not as we do !.

    Report this comment


    Monday, September 24, 2012

  • As a member of the LGPS I want none of my money invested in harming or killing other humans as is now the case with tobacco.These investments should be removed from the LGPS portfolio as now there is also a clear conflict of interest with responsibilities for public health now in the hands of local government and they should be replaced with green investment for the long term.Humans need protecting from the tobacco companies.

    Report this comment

    Peter Watson

    Monday, September 24, 2012

  • Peter Watson is entitled to his opinion but I wonder if he has expressed the same views about supplying overseas aid to the likes of China and Russia and the money spent on nuclear projects.Tobacco is a safe investment and is used worldwide,not just in the U.K.Investors want their money invested into safe commodities not blown away.Smoking is not illegal.

    Report this comment

    john kendall

    Wednesday, September 26, 2012

  • Tobacco company shares are one of the safest on the market. Councils must not invest in risky shares. Many Councils lost a lot on money when they invested in Iceland banks.

    Report this comment

    chas winfield

    Monday, September 24, 2012

  • I no longer smoke, and it's not something I think people should take up. However, it IS still just about legal, and there is no end to the companies one might not invest in on grounds of principle e.g. power, oil, motors, food, drink, chemicals, pharma - you name it, someone won't approve of it. So if the returns are good, then they should carry on. Given the current war on smoking, one presumes that in time the investments may not produce good returns, in which case put the money somewhere else - assuming there are places which everyone approves of.

    Report this comment

    T Doff

    Monday, September 24, 2012

  • Ha ha ha! "Well said "V"". Not a collection of words that one sees very often. Nor is it apt today either. Read T Doff's comment for a more sensible comment. The better that Fund performs, the less likelihood there is to support it with public subsidy.

    Report this comment

    Tom Jeffries

    Monday, September 24, 2012

  • Presumably people who smoke will, on average, die younger than non-smokers and the pension fund will make further savings as a result. Makes sense.

    Report this comment


    Monday, September 24, 2012

  • Why not take a leaf out of Switzerland's book, the decision making process by referendum. We are supposed to be living in a democratic society - I think not.

    Report this comment

    Essex Girl

    Monday, September 24, 2012

  • Smocking is not illegal, but it kills people, costs us billions in NHS costs. Just as investing in arms companies, it shows the desperation of local councils in having to make money for their pension pot, there is not enough money otherwise, in short, their pension arrangements are tied to the necessities of the market. It is not ethical and the word should not even be used in conjunction with tobacco.

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Thursday, September 27, 2012

  • despicable ethics for decades now. well said V

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Monday, September 24, 2012

  • I can't see why they would do anything differently, after all Dr Harries Director of Public Health NHS Norfolk, knows all about the dangerous health effects of incinerators on local people's health, and she was more than happy to support it. She will also be well aware of the dangers of vaccines and yet supports the relentless drive to inflict them on everyone. The health 'industry' is a joke, it is nothing more than a very profitable money-making scheme for the drug companies’ shareholders.

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Monday, September 24, 2012

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site


Most Read

Newsletter Sign Up

Sign up to receive our regular email newsletter

Most Commented

Latest from the EDP

Partly Cloudy

Partly Cloudy

max temp: 11°C

min temp: 6°C

Listen to the latest weather forecast

Show Job Lists

Digital Edition


Enjoy the EDP
digital edition