Key Points
- Hackney councillors accuse divestment activists of “jumping on the bandwagon.”
- Protesters demand the council withdraw pension fund investments from arms companies linked to Israel.
- Demonstrators gathered outside Hackney Town Hall on 20 February before a pensions committee meeting.
- Independent Socialist Cllr Penny Wrout criticised the council for omitting divestment protests from its annual report.
- Cllr Wrout requested changes to the report to reflect residents’ concerns, but Cllr Ian Rathbone warned this could set a “dangerous precedent.”
- Committee Chair Cllr Kam Adams rejected the calls, saying divestment demands were not specific enough.
- Activists, including Palestine Solidarity Campaign, claim £30m of Hackney’s pension fund is invested in arms-linked firms, while the council states it is £2.02m.
- Mayor Caroline Woodley previously expressed openness to “ethical divestment,” but Cllr Adams warned against financial risks.
- Waltham Forest and Islington councils have made clearer commitments to divestment.
- In July, Hackney Council refused to hear a Palestine Solidarity Campaign deputation, citing “community cohesion” concerns.
- Anonymous activists defaced Hackney Town Hall with red paint following the protest.
- Hackney Council condemned vandalism and pledged to assist police investigations.
Hackney Councillors Dismiss Calls for Divestment as ‘Jumping on the Bandwagon’
Hackney councillors have strongly criticised activists demanding the council divest from Israeli arms companies, accusing them of “jumping on the bandwagon.” This follows a protest outside Hackney Town Hall on 20 February, where demonstrators called for the withdrawal of pension fund investments linked to Israel’s military operations in Gaza and the West Bank.
Why Are Activists Calling for Divestment?
Campaigners from groups including the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and Hackney for Palestine have been urging Hackney Council to divest its Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) from companies operating in Israeli settlements. They specifically demand the exclusion of firms listed by the UN Human Rights Council for alleged complicity in military occupation and human rights abuses.
Hackney protestors have also targeted Elbit Systems, a Haifa-based military company supplying technology to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). PSC claims Hackney’s pension fund holds £30m in such investments, while the council estimates it at £2.02m—just 0.2% of its £2bn fund.
What Was Said During the Council Meeting?
At the pension committee meeting, Independent Socialist Cllr Penny Wrout questioned why the annual report omitted any reference to ongoing divestment protests.
“Since October 2023, there have been regular demonstrations at every pension committee, but nowhere [in the report] are these terms used,” Cllr Wrout said.
She urged the council to revise the report to reflect local concerns, adding:
“I’m sure the people of Hackney who have come out to demonstrate will be concerned that residents’ concerns about investments in armaments, used in what many people would see as a genocide, are in no way reflected in that report.”
Why Did Councillors Reject Calls for Divestment?
Councillors pushed back against the calls for amendments and divestment, citing procedural and financial concerns.
Cllr Ian Rathbone argued that altering official minutes to include outside opinions would set a “very dangerous precedent.”
Committee Chair Cllr Kam Adams dismissed the divestment movement, saying:
“People are just jumping on the bandwagon of divestment. Nobody has come up with what we are divesting from. Is it from the Occupied Territories? Is it from Israel?”
What Is the Council’s Stance on Divestment?
Mayor Caroline Woodley previously indicated she was open to “ethical divestment,” but Cllr Adams warned that withdrawing “passive” investments could financially harm the pension fund.
Hackney Council, like other local authorities, has a legal duty to ensure its pension scheme remains profitable. While Waltham Forest and Islington have taken steps to divest, Hackney officials argue that their investments are “indirect,” meaning even fund managers have limited control over where money is allocated.
In July, the council refused to hear a PSC deputation on the matter, citing fears it could “undermine community cohesion.”
Did the Protest Lead to Vandalism?
The day after the meeting, anonymous activists sprayed Hackney Town Hall with red paint, with reports of further vandalism occurring later that night. It remains unclear whether the acts were linked to the demonstration.
A Hackney Council spokesperson condemned the defacement, stating:
“We do not tolerate vandalism and we will assist the police in bringing criminal proceedings against any perpetrators to ensure the safety of elected members, employees and members of the public.”
What Happens Next?
Despite continued protests, Hackney Council remains firm on its investment policies. With growing pressure from campaigners and the precedent set by other London boroughs, it remains to be seen whether the authority will reconsider its position in the future.
