Monmouthshire County Council has voted to review whether it holds investments in companies linked to alleged breaches of international law in Gaza, becoming the latest Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) administering authority to formally examine the human rights implications of its portfolio.

The decision followed a public question from Mr Peter Short, who urged the council to divest from all “complicit” companies and to exert pressure on the Greater Gwent (Torfaen) LGPS, and through it, the Wales Pension Partnership, to do the same.

“To not do so would seem to be contrary to both Monmouthshire’s, Torfaen’s and the Wales Pension Partnership’s responsible investment policy,” he said.

A subsequent motion, brought by Green Party councillor, Ian Chandler, - a member of the Labour-led cabinet that runs the authority - resolved that the council would review its own holdings and request that the Greater Gwent Pension Fund carry out a similar review.

At the meeting, which took place last Thursday, councillors agreed that the council should check for any direct or indirect holdings in companies supplying arms, military technology or logistical support “which enable breaches of international law in Gaza”, and take steps to end such investments where identified.

A progress report is due back to the council within three months.

The move comes amid increased scrutiny of LGPS portfolios in light of the conflict in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, with several other funds having recently undertaken similar reviews, or under pressure to do so.

It also comes just days after London CIV, which manages pooled assets on behalf of London’s local authorities, issued a detailed statement clarifying the scale and nature of its exposures relating to the conflict, following what it described as “misinterpretation” of publicly available data.

London CIV argued campaign groups had incorrectly claimed the pool was exposed to £7bn of investments allegedly complicit in conflict and human rights abuses.

“This is incorrect and appears to have arisen from a misunderstanding of data published on our website last year following an FOI request,” the pool said.

The pool clarified that its own funds had £713m of relevant exposure - equal to 4 per cent of total assets - with 85 per cent concentrated in just three companies: Alphabet, Meta and Microsoft.

Meanwhile, partner fund exposures of £6.5bn were held in their own passive strategies, entirely outside the pool’s control.

London CIV stressed that, while exposure data is important, the “critical question is what to do about it”, arguing that engagement is often a more effective tool than divestment.

Through stewardship provider EOS at Federated Hermes, the pool said it is challenging companies with operations in high-risk regions to strengthen human rights due diligence and oversight.

“Simply selling shares does not fix underlying issues; it often just transfers them to investors who may not care,” it claimed.

London CIV added that it is committed to presenting clearer data and supporting partner funds in implementing their democratically determined responsible investment policies.

---