Agenda item

a)         To consider the following Motion to be proposed by Councillor James Batho (seconded by Councillor Jackie Porter):

 

“Council notes with concern:

·       The increased use of vaping products by children in the UK. Recent data from the ASH Smokefree GB Youth Survey 2022 found that the prevalence of vaping amongst 11-18 year olds is increasing – from 4% in 2021 to 8.6% in 2022 – and a significant number of children buy these vaping products directly from newsagents or supermarkets.

·       The increased number of local authorities who have recently had to take enforcement activity against shops illegally selling vaping products to youngsters. Since September 2023 Hampshire County Council Trading Standards Service have seized over 10,500 illegal vapes, with a retail value estimated at £153,674 and in one instance over £40,000 of stock was removed from a single shop.

·       The marketing of certain vaping products – with bright coloured packaging and flavours such as bubble-gum – that might appeal to children.

·       A significant increase in the availability of disposable and single-use vaping products which are cheaper and easier for children to access and a major source of littering. A report by Material Focus in 2022 states that:

o   14 million single-use vapes are bought each month

o   Over 50% of single-use vapes are thrown away

o   1.3 million single-use vapes are thrown away every week or 5.4 million per month. While each vape contains just 0.15g of lithium, the scale of the waste means about 10 tonnes of the metal, equivalent to the batteries inside 1,200 electric vehicles, is ending up in landfills.

·       In July 2022 the UK Government published, Resilience for the Future: The UK’s critical minerals strategy, which assessed lithium, (among other minerals), as being of high criticality for the UK.

·       More than 700 fires in bin lorries and recycling centres were caused by batteries that had been dumped into general waste.

 

Council acknowledges:

 

·       The role vaping products play in aiding adults to stop smoking, and that vaping products carry a small fraction of the risk and exposure to toxins that are associated with cigarettes. However, vaping is not risk free; particularly for those who have never smoked. Vaping products contain nicotine and research shows that most children who use them have never smoked.

·       That in October 2023 the Government announced an Open Consultation on creating a smokefree generation and tackling youth vaping and that this was further referred to in the King’s Speech – but is only ‘considering’ restrictions on the sale and supply of disposable vaping products.

Council believes that disposable vapes are an inherently unsustainable product, meaning an outright ban remains the most effective solution to this problem.

Council therefore resolves:

·       To support the Local Government Association call for a ban on the sale and manufacture of disposable vapes by 2024 and that disposable vaping products be regulated through the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in a similar way as other single-use items, such as bans on plastic straws.

·       That the Leader to write to Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to express Council’s support for the banning of the disposable vaping products detailed in this motion.

·       That the Council should respond to any future consultation on the banning of the sale and manufacture of disposable vaping products by supporting such a ban.”

 

 

b)         To consider the following Motion to be proposed by Councillor Stephen Godfrey (seconded by Councillor Caroline Brook):

 

“This council has already committed to achieving net zero for the Winchester district.  This council further commits to not investing in any carbon neutrality project that does not directly benefit residents by achieving reductions in carbon emissions in real terms.”

 

 

c)         To consider the following Motion to be proposed by Councillor Jonny Morris (seconded by Councillor John Tippett-Cooper):

 

“Winchester City Council does not have any direct investments in fossil fuels but through employer and employee contributions, it currently forms part of around £136 million of investment in the Hampshire Local Government Pension Fund, according to UK Divest.

 

The commitment of the Hampshire pension fund for its investments to be carbon neutral by 2050 neither reflects the urgency of the climate emergency and this Council’s objective of Winchester becoming a carbon neutral district by 2030 nor the need to rapidly divest from fossil fuel assets.

 

Carbon budgets produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, United Nations and the International Energy Agency show that preventing two degrees of warming relies on not burning the vast majority of all known fossil fuel reserves.

 

The UN International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that global oil demand will significantly fall by 2030, leading their Executive Director to refer to oil and gas companies as potential ‘junk investments.’ Action by governments to limit carbon emissions will ultimately leave fossil fuel reserves unburnable.  Former Bank of England Governor Mark Carney has warned that fossil fuel investments risk becoming “stranded assets” as investors exit the sector.

 

Pension funds have a fiduciary duty to consider the material risks of continued investment in fossil fuels. Fiduciary duty is defined by the Law Commission as “ensuring that pensions can be paid, ensuring that this is undertaken at the best possible value”. This can only be achieved through the rapid divestment of potential stranded assets and junk investments which will become more difficult over time and should be done sooner rather than later.

 

This Council therefore instructs the Leader to write to the Chair of the Hampshire Pension Fund Panel and Board asking the Board:

 

a)    To commit the Hampshire Pension Fund to divest from direct ownership and any commingled funds that include fossil fuel equities and corporate bonds as soon as possible with a deadline of 2030; and

b)    To actively seek to invest in companies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, minimise climate risk and where possible provide local environmental benefits,

while ensuring the Fund continues to generate a sufficient level of return to ensure the current and future sustainability of the fund.”

 

 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10, three motions had been submitted for council.

 

(i) Motion submitted by Councillor Batho – Vaping products

 

The motion had been submitted by Councillor Batho as set out on the agenda and was seconded by Councillor Porter.  The motion was introduced.

 

Council then debated the matters in the motion.  In summary the following points were raised:

 

·     Society seemingly continued to promote things that were detrimental to young people’s health. 

·     Vapes can be a positive way for adults to wean themselves off smoking cigarettes.

·     A ban on all vape products would be preferable, but the motion as presented was a starting point.

·     In the USA, there had been some evidence that banning some vaping products has seen an increase in smoking. In some instances, young people were using nitrous oxide cannisters, which was a greater concern than vapes. 

·     The lack of recyclability of disposable vapes was an issue, but there could be unintended consequences of a ban from more smoking.

·     Although cigarettes were more harmful, vapes are cheaper and more attractive to younger people and easier to get obtain – and their detrimental impact on developing lungs had been proven.  Children used vapes more than who had previously been observed smoking.  

·     The key issue of the motion before council was regarding the principle of disposable vapes being able to be thrown away into general waste (or inadvertently into recycling) at the end of their use, to the detriment of the environment.

·     The health benefits of vaping for adults who already smoke and then turn to vaping products had been proven. 

·     The ingredients and materials in vaping products was unregulated.  The lithium batteries within the units can cause fires amongst recycling. 

·       Banning plastic straws, but not disposable vapes was illogical.

 

Following the proposer of motion (Councillor Batho) exercising his right to respond to the debate, council then voted on the motion as set out on the agenda.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That Council resolves:

1.    To support the Local Government Association call for a ban on the sale and manufacture of disposable vapes by 2024 and that disposable vaping products be regulated through the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in a similar way as other single-use items, such as bans on plastic straws.

2.    That the Leader write to Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to express Council’s support for the banning of the disposable vaping products detailed in this motion.

3.    That the Council should respond to any future consultation on the banning of the sale and manufacture of disposable vaping products by supporting such a ban.

(ii) Motion submitted by Councillor Godfrey – carbon neutrality projects

 

The motion had been submitted by Councillor Godfrey as set out on the agenda and was seconded by Councillor Brook.  The motion was introduced.

 

Council then debated the matters in the motion.  In summary the following points were raised:

 

• The council was confident that it was able to deliver, within the district, any offsetting required regarding the council’s carbon footprint.
• Tree planting and other nature-based solutions take several years to have an impact regarding carbon benefits.
• Other projects such as, for example, investment in EV charging at Barfield 2 and initiatives such as energy monitoring and promoting active travel may fall foul to the detail expressed by motion.
• All substantive council projects were considered according to the usual council approvals process, including policy committees and scrutiny. If an objective of a project was to achieve carbon neutrality goals, and this was not proven to not have the necessary impact, then it would be rejected. 
• It was not clear which type of climate action projects the motion would want to exclude.

·       Winchester City Council’s performance in Hampshire and the UK regarding its climate actions was good compared to other councils. 

·     The council should increase ambition and action on the climate emergency.  This would also improve the lives of residents now through various measures and initiatives, such as insulating homes.

·     Regarding carbon offsetting outside of the district, this was likely to be a last measure of resort.

·     Carbon reduction measures were a global issue and could not be localised to the Winchester district.  The council should embrace any project that would have a positive affect on the whole planet.

·     All forms of energy have some impact on the planet.  Solar energy projects would not help meet carbon net zero targets and these also produced pollutants during their manufacture.  Projects should not cause any additional environmental issues.

·     All investment should be made in the district for the benefit of its residents and should reduce carbon footprint in real terms.

·     Urgent action regarding carbon reduction was required and should not include offsetting with carbon credits.

 

Following the proposer of motion (Councillor Godfrey) exercising his right to respond to the debate, council then voted on the motion as set out on the agenda.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the motion proposed by Councillor Godfrey (seconded by Councillor Brook) be not supported.

(iii) Motion submitted by Councillor Morris – Hampshire Pension Fund and divestment in fossil fuels.

 

The motion had been submitted by Councillor Morris as set out on the agenda and was seconded by Councillor Tippet-Cooper.  The motion was introduced.

 

Council then debated the matters in the motion.  In summary the following points were raised:

 

• Councils are key to affect climate action, but this was potentially undermined by local authority pension funds funding fossil fuels.
• Councillors do not contribute to the Hampshire Pension Fund, nor have the right to interfere with the business of other organisations. 
• Future beneficiaries rely on the security of the fund and can express their view to the pension board regarding their investments.  Hasty divestment could threaten the fund.
• The largest energy companies were already looking at diversification in more sustainable models.
• The motion proposed to inspire the Hampshire Pension Fund to move faster on this matter.
• It is not the council’s business to be advising on the appropriateness of the fund’s investments.
• Energy companies were already moving towards greener alternatives and therefore they should not be considered at this time regarding divestment.
• Individuals can opt out of pension funds.
• The government backed National Employment Savings Trust Scheme (the UK’s biggest pension fund) had recently announced divestment from fossil fuels.
• It was possible to encourage pension schemes to divest - but it was appreciated that you cannot tell them to do so.
• The motion as presented was for divestment by 2030, as to do so at a later time was too late,

 

AMENDMENT – Moved by Councillor Lee and seconded by Councillor Wallace:

 

Add additional c) at paragraph 6 of the Motion as proposed, to read:

 

“To actively consider creation of a Green Fund, at least £25million of the Hampshire Pension Fund, for investment bids in Hampshire wide Green projects to deliver climate and nature benefits in the fight against Climate Change and Nature crises.  This fund to be open for bids by all Hampshire Local Authorities who can demonstrate projects meet FCA and pension fund ‘Return on Investment’ (ROI) rules.”

 

Council proceeded to then debate the matters in the Amendment.  In summary the following points were raised:

 

• The council can not be seen to constrain pension trustees in their investments, nor assume officer resource in making bids for funds.
• There should be policy discussion about how to utilise investment in the Hampshire Pension Fund to drive change to de-carbonise and to tackle the nature emergency etc, recognising the need for a strong financial return.
• The intent behind the Amendment was good however contributors to the pension fund (those employed in the public sector in Hampshire) would be those receiving investments from the pension fund.
• The Amendment could lead the council closer to being involved in pension fund investments.     

 

Following the proposer of original motion (Councillor Morris) exercising his right to reply to the debate on the Amendment, council then voted on the Amendment as set out above.

 

AMENDMENT LOST

 

Following the seconder of motion (unamended) (Councillor Tippett-Cooper) exercising his right to respond to the debate, council then voted on the motion as set out on the agenda.

 

RESOLVED:

 

This Council instructs the Leader to write to the Chair of the Hampshire Pension Fund Panel and Board asking the Board:

 

a)    To commit the Hampshire Pension Fund to divest from direct ownership and any commingled funds that include fossil fuel equities and corporate bonds as soon as possible with a deadline of 2030; and

 

b)    To actively seek to invest in companies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, minimise climate risk and where possible provide local environmental benefits,

 

while ensuring the Fund continues to generate a sufficient level of return to ensure the current and future sustainability of the fund.