Civic Signal GUEST
ROWS
API PATHS
Docs Sign in
Browsing as a guest. A free key raises the rate limit.

Decision - Response to notice of motion from October Council

Brighton and Hove Cabinet Decided 12 Feb 2026 approved GET /api/coverage
Decision maker
Cabinet
Report author
Haley Woollard, John Hooton
Published
13 Feb 2026
Reference
7584

As published

the council's own words, unedited

The report provides an update to Cabinet following the Notice of Motion to Full Council in October 2025, which asked for a review of all Council exposure to companies operating in the occupied territories.

1) Cabinet notes the information set out in section 3 of this report, setting out exposure of ESPF, the Councils treasury investments, and our freehold landholdings to 'involved companies'. 'Involved companies' refers to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) list that has been compiled of companies that operate in illegal settlements in the West Bank. 2) Cabinet agrees that, as part of the implementation of Local Government Reorganisation in Sussex, we will recommend that Brighton and Hove City Council has more representation on governance and oversight arrangements for the East Sussex Pension Fund or any replacement Fund.

Parsed from the document

gpt-5.6-luna-2026-07-09 · 3005/2117 tokens · 15933ms · parsed 8 Sep 2026 11:38
Everything below was read out of a PDF by a model It is useful and it is not authoritative. The document it came from is linked in the rail, and where the two disagree the document is right.

The report updates Cabinet on the exposure of the East Sussex Pension Fund, the Council's treasury investments and its freehold landholdings to companies listed by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights as operating in illegal settlements in the West Bank. The Council has no treasury or property exposure to those companies, while the East Sussex Pension Fund has approximately £29.8 million invested in them, mainly through several international companies. Cabinet also considered future pension fund pooling and recommended seeking greater Brighton and Hove representation in governance arrangements.

Outcome
approved
Recommendation
Cabinet was recommended to note the information on exposure to ‘involved companies’ and agree that, as part of Local Government Reorganisation in Sussex, Brighton and Hove City Council should recommend seeking greater representation on governance and oversight arrangements for the East Sussex Pension Fund or any replacement fund.
Financial impact
No direct financial implications arising from the recommendations.
Ward affected
city-wide
Decision maker
Cabinet
Date in document
12 Feb 2026

Stakeholders named

parsed
Brighton & Hove City CouncilEast Sussex County CouncilEast Sussex Pension FundBrighton and Hove City Council pension scheme membersLocal authority pension fundsPension fund employers and scheme membersCompanies identified by the OHCHR

Next steps

parsed
  • The Council will recommend greater Brighton and Hove representation on governance and oversight arrangements for the East Sussex Pension Fund or any replacement fund as part of Local Government Reorganisation in Sussex.
  • From 1 April 2026, implementation of the overarching investment strategy will move to the Border to Coast pool.
  • The East Sussex Pension Fund will continue engaging with investment managers and monitoring exposure to OHCHR-listed companies.

Precedents

not built
"Decided elsewhere" is not built Finding the same decision in other councils needs semantic matching over decision text, which is part of the search rewrite. Until then, the council's own decisions list is the way through.
Documents
Who voted
Not extracted
Recorded votes are published in the minutes but we do not yet parse them into a direction per councillor. This page will not guess at one.
Watch this
Not built
Following a decision would ask you for a channel — email or webhook — at the point of following, with no default. Neither channel exists yet.
GET /api/coverage