• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
  • Gowling WLG
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • Cookie Policy
  • Home
  • About
  • Posts
  • Blogs
    • B2022
    • The IP Blog
    • Public Law & Regulation
    • AI
    • The UPC Blog

LoupedIn

Guidance on Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) Investments ruled to be illogical and unlawful

Published on August 14, 2020 by John Cooper, Kieran Laird and Ravi Randhawa

Guidance on Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) Investments ruled to be illogical and unlawful

In R (on the application of Palestine Solidarity Campaign Ltd) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2020] UKSC 16 the Supreme Court considered whether guidance issued by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government as to the type of ethical investments permitted to be held within the LGPS was unlawful.

Under the Pensions Act 2013 (the 2013 Act) the Secretary of State has a power to make such regulations as considered appropriate for, among other things, “the administration and management of the scheme, including (a) the giving of guidance or directions by the responsible authority to the scheme manager …“.

The Secretary of State sought to argue that this power extended to guidance made under such regulations requiring that the administrator of a scheme “Should not pursue policies that are contrary to UK foreign policy or UK defence policy” and further that “… the Government has made clear that using pension policies to pursue boycotts, divestment and sanctions against foreign nations and UK defence industries are inappropriate, other than where formal legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions have been put in place by the Government.”

Following Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997, the Supreme Court sought to analyse the words used to confer the power in context in order to determine Parliament’s purpose in providing the power and thus the scope in which it fell to be used. This was particularly important in circumstances where the power to make regulations as considered appropriate was very broad.

In a 3-2 decision of the Supreme Court, the guidance was ruled to be ultra vires the Secretary of State’s statutory powers.

Lord Wilson, with whom Lady Hale, agreed held that the policy of the 2013 Act, recognised in the case of the scheme by the regulations and indeed by most of the guidance, identified the procedures and strategy that administrators of schemes should adopt in the discharge of their functions. However, the two sections of the guidance under challenge attempted to do something very different in that they tried to enforce the Government’s foreign and defence policies. A ‘power to direct HOW administrators should approach the making of investment decisions by reference to non-financial considerations did not include power to direct (in this case for entirely extraneous reasons) WHAT investments they should not make’.

In their joint dissenting judgment, Lady Arden and Lord Sales considered that the 2013 Act allowed for guidance requiring that wider considerations of public interest should be considered in administrators’ investment strategies. As the LGPS is liable to being identified with the British State, there was a risk that a decision by it to boycott certain investments could be seen as a decision taken by the Government. The guidance could be seen as based on a legitimate Government concern, which was allowed for by the broad terms of the 2013 Act, especially since other ethical investment decisions do not carry general risk to UK trade, security or communities. It was also considered relevant that the guidance did not interfere with the administering authorities’ performance of their legal investment duties, nor did it promote or affect the LGPS financially.

John Cooper, Kieran Laird and Ravi Randhawa

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: LGPS, Pensions

Views expressed in this blog do not necessarily reflect those of Gowling WLG.

NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Information made available on this website in any form is for information purposes only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. You should not rely on, or take or fail to take any action based upon this information. Never disregard professional legal advice or delay in seeking legal advice because of something you have read on this website. Gowling WLG professionals will be pleased to discuss resolutions to specific legal concerns you may have.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • MIPIM 2023: Key topics shaping the future of real estate
  • Climate change – New report highlights areas for scaling up action
  • Transferring data out of China? Understand the key points from the Chinese Standard Contractual Clauses

Tags

apprenticeships (5) Artificial Intelligence (AI) (52) Autonomous vehicles (11) b2022 (18) Birmingham 2022 (8) Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games (14) brand protection (5) Brexit (23) china (5) Climate change (13) COP26 (11) COP27 (6) Copyright (8) COVID-19 (23) Cyber security (5) Data protection (6) Employment (13) employment law (9) Environment (8) ESG (21) ESG and pensions (9) financial services (5) Intellectual Property (59) IP (9) Life sciences (6) net zero (6) Patents (28) Pensions (41) Pension scams (5) Pension Schemes Act 2021 (11) Pensions dashboards (7) Pensions in 2022 (10) Pensions law (31) Procurement (7) Public Law & Regulation (39) Real Estate (17) Retail (6) sustainability (7) Tech (45) The Week In Pensions (11) Trademarks (13) UK (15) unified patents court (9) UPC (24) Week in HR (8)

Categories

Archives

Gowling WLG is an international law firm comprising the members of Gowling WLG International Limited, an English Company Limited by Guarantee, and their respective affiliates. Each member and affiliate is an autonomous and independent entity. Gowling WLG International Limited promotes, facilitates and co-ordinates the activities of its members but does not itself provide services to clients. Our structure is explained in more detail on our Legal Information page.

Footer

LoupedIn is the Official Gowling WLG Blog. Gowling WLG is an international law firm comprising the members of Gowling WLG International Limited, an English Company Limited by Guarantee, and their respective affiliates. Each member and affiliate is an autonomous and independent entity. Gowling WLG International Limited promotes, facilitates and co-ordinates the activities of its members but does not itself provide services to clients. Our structure is explained in more detail on our Legal Information page.

  • Home
  • About
  • Gowling WLG
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • Cookie Policy

© 2023 Gowling WLG

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT