{"id":1186147,"date":"2026-09-04T14:09:17","date_gmt":"2026-09-04T14:09:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/1186147\/"},"modified":"2026-09-04T14:09:17","modified_gmt":"2026-09-04T14:09:17","slug":"more-reform-uk-led-local-government-funds-to-leave-ri-body","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/1186147\/","title":{"rendered":"More Reform UK-led local government funds to leave RI body"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Illustration<\/p>\n

The pension funds of Reform UK-controlled Derbyshire and Staffordshire councils are set to end membership of the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum (LAPFF), following Nottinghamshire\u2019s decision to pull out<\/a> in June.<\/p>\n

A meeting of the Derbyshire Pensions and Investments Committee on Wednesday voted by 6-4 to withdraw, while the Staffordshire Pension Fund Panel on Tuesday voted 3-1 to recommend its fund committee to withdraw, which is meeting on 25 September.<\/p>\n

Mainly composed of elected councillors, pension fund committees act in a quasi-trustee capacity.<\/p>\n

The Derbyshire decision was made against the recommendation of the fund, one of seven founding members of LAPFF, whose fund head Dawn Kinley\u2019s report<\/a> said the advantages of membership meant withdrawal was not recommended.<\/p>\n

LAPFF, which was founded in 1990, represents \u00a3425 billion ($574 billion; \u20ac495 billion) in local authority pension fund assets, carrying out engagement on topics including executive pay, conflict zones and the Just Transition.<\/p>\n

All six Local Government Pension Scheme pools including LGPS Central \u2013 the pool for \u00a37.7 billion Derbyshire, \u00a38.5 billion Staffordshire and \u00a37.2 billion Nottinghamshire \u2013 are members, as are 85 other funds.<\/p>\n

The right-wing populist Reform UK party has been vocal in its opposition to ESG and net-zero investing<\/a>\u00a0when it comes to the country\u2019s LGPS.<\/p>\n

The Derbyshire committee has six Reform members, while both the Staffordshire panel and the committee set to vote on the withdrawal have a Reform majority.<\/p>\n

The Reform departures from LAPFF could be a headache for LGPS Central, which recently added member funds from Brunel Pension Partnership as the latter began its wind-down.<\/p>\n

Some new members, including Oxfordshire and Wiltshire, have advanced responsible investment and climate strategies even as Reform takes over other funds in the Midlands.<\/p>\n

Membership perks<\/strong><\/p>\n

Derbyshire\u2019s Kinley said LAPFF membership supports corporate engagement activities, provides access to politicians and policymakers, and supports the fulfilment of the fund\u2019s statutory responsible investment and stewardship responsibilities.<\/p>\n

She also noted that LGPS Central enjoys free LAPFF membership as its member funds are all signed up. However, if LGPS Central has to begin paying because a member fund leaves, it will pass on that fee to them. Derbyshire and Staffordshire pension funds currently pay around \u00a312,500 annually.<\/p>\n

Among a list of potential disadvantages, she acknowledged that the full range of engagement activities is unlikely to be supported by all members of LAPFF, and its approach \u201cmay be misaligned with the direction of an LGPS fund\u2019s administering authority\u201d.<\/p>\n

A report for the Staffordshire panel<\/a> noted that LAPFF\u2019s engagements on conflict-affected and high-risk areas are helpful, given current scrutiny and enquiries on its investments and stance on the topic.<\/p>\n

It also warned that administering authorities owe \u201ctrustee-like fiduciary duties\u201d to scheme members, meaning they should act impartially and not prioritise the views of the authority.<\/p>\n

However, it stopped short of recommending a course of action.<\/p>\n

Neither LAPFF nor LGPS Central responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The pension funds of Reform UK-controlled Derbyshire and Staffordshire councils are set to end membership of the Local…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1186148,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[3,4],"tags":[748,393,35277,4884,1144,616,712,16,15,33573,1764],"class_list":["post-1186147","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-uk","category-united-kingdom","tag-britain","tag-england","tag-esg-backlash","tag-great-britain","tag-northern-ireland","tag-pension-funds","tag-scotland","tag-uk","tag-united-kingdom","tag-voting-engagement","tag-wales"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/117213172051309449","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1186147","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1186147"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1186147\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1186148"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1186147"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1186147"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1186147"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}