Agenda item

Motion A

Proposed by Cllr. Wendy Flynn and seconded by Cllr. Tabi Joy.

Cheltenham Youth Council

This Council resolves:

To establish a Cheltenham Youth Council.

In proposing the motion, Cllr. Flynn reminded Members that in 1997, CBC had initiated a programme of work called ‘Investment in young people – a strategic framework’. This recommended the creation of a Youth Affairs post to deliver actions outlined in the strategy, including the formation of a youth council.

‘Right here, right now – a strategy for young people’, approved in 2001, further developed the arguments for creating opportunities for young people to engage with the council. It stressed the importance of working with partners to help young people develop the skills needed to ensure they had influence, and looked to ensure young people could become active citizens, in their communities and through the ballot box. The latter strategy noted that all young people suffered a disadvantage through a lack of influence in decision-making. It focused on 10-19 year olds but involved some work with young people outside of that age range, and demonstrated a commitment to Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In February 2003, a report went to the council’s Social & Community O&S Committee, highlighting the work of the youth council and including wide-ranging consultation with other young people. The paper stated that CBC was addressing this democratic deficit in a number of ways, including by having a strategy for young people, a youth council representative on O&S and youth spokespersons for each party who worked and met with the Young People’s Council on a regular basis. Cabinet decided in 2011 to cease funding for the youth council denying young people a vehicle for meaningful engagement with the council since.

She was pleased that there was a focus on the views of young people in the draft Culture Strategy, to the extent that there was a recommendation to have a young person sit on the board. This stance on including young people was one the council should follow. She noted that the new Corporate Plan made no commitment to actively involve young people in the making of decisions or policy. There was little mention of children and young people’s democratic participation in any of the council’s policies since 2011, suggesting that giving young people a democratic voice had been relegated to the back of their mind.

Last month, six councillors heard from the Youth Climate Group that young people did not feel represented in power-holding structures, that there should be an integration of youth voices into the decision-making process and that there should be a structure for long-term participation for young people. When O&S reported back to Council after looking at UNICEF child-friendly city status, it was clear that there was not currently a mechanism for young people to influence what the council did.

She added that Stroud’s District Youth Council had been founded in 2000. District Youth Councillors acted as representatives of their community, advocating the issues faced by young people in the area. The youth council and nine locality-based youth forums represented the views of young people, enabling them to collectively use their right to have a voice and be heard on relevant issues of concern. They engaged with decision makers to influence change and make a positive contribution to improving the lives of people in the communities they represented, and interact with elected district members. They were also involved in the district council’s performance monitoring and policy and strategy work, and had focus groups for topics such as Health and Wellbeing, Democracy, Anti-Bullying, Young People’s Rights and Local Transport. She asked that councillors take a look at Stroud Youth Council’s website for evidence of the positive impact of Stroud’s commitment to giving young people a voice.

In summing up, Cllr. Flynn noted that a youth council could be set up in many different ways, as explained in the link submitted with the motion. What it would look like was for the young people of the town to lead on. All Members were being asking to do was to vote to start the journey to give young people in Cheltenham a vehicle for their voices to be truly heard.

In seconding the motion, Cllr. Joy suggested that there were a number of strong options for improving democratic engagement among young people. It was important to include both those who could not yet vote and those who could but lacked understanding and familiarity with the political system. There was a clear appetite for engagement, and it was about empowering young people with practical and accessible ways to participate.

She added that an ongoing and structured process for youth participation, in addition to clarifying areas of ambiguity (for example students not being sure whether they could vote in their university constituency or hometown) could make a big difference. There were many options open to the council that would not be too expensive or time-consuming. Offering young people a voice in their local community would also help to build roots between them and the area, at a time when many young people chose to move away from their home towns.

She acknowledged that there would be associated costs and burdens on officer capacity, but this motion would simply get the ball rolling on an issue where the stakes were very high. Hopefully, this would be an iterative process which all parties could take part in at their discretion, and did not necessarily need to be CBC focused. There were several councillors in their 20s, but with 19% of Cheltenham’s population aged 15-29 according to the 2021 census, this demographic was still significantly underrepresented.

It was good that the Accessibility Forum was in place to take disability concerns into account, and that racial and cultural equity measures were being adopted, but young people needed to be included in outreach work as well. A number of measures had been adopted successfully elsewhere, like work experience placements, support to attend council meetings, shadowing councillors and officers, representation on committees, and creating strategy groups where motions could be brought forward. All of these options would help to empower young people and equip them to absorb information and give back to their communities. It would be a long-term investment, and something that should be considered with the future in mind.

Cllr. Tailford proposed an amendment to the motion, seconded by Cllr. Chidley.

Motion A (Amendment)

Cheltenham Youth Council

 Cheltenham Borough Council and its partners are proud of the outreach work undertaken to ensure that young people have a voice in the democratic process.

 Council welcomes ongoing work to broaden this engagement strategy, including visits by the Cabinet Members Climate Emergency and Safety & Communities to meetings with local young people as part of the Cheltenham Education Partnership, and engagement by the Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Culture, Tourism and Wellbeing with GlosCol supporting their construction skills agenda.

This Council resolves:

To refer the issue of mechanisms by which we can further involve young people in Cheltenham Borough Council life to Cabinet and the relevant Cabinet Member (Safety and Communities) to explore feasible additional outreach and inclusion options – with a youth council or youth forum as options to be costed and considered.

In proposing the amendment, Cllr. Tailford thanked Cllrs. Flynn and Joy for bringing the initial motion forward. It was important to get the ball rolling and make a difference for young people. He felt that the amendment offered more scope to find a solution for Cheltenham and its young people. There was a clear need to do more across the UK to engage young people in democracy, particularly at a time when they were feeling increasingly disenfranchised.

There were two key groups in play: the 18-25s feeling disenfranchised across the country, and the under 18s who had very little say in the political system. At a recent climate event, he spoke to those involved in Stroud’s youth council, which was the only one in the county, to try and find out its cost and feasibility. In terms of officer time, including transport and qualified youth workers, it cost them around £125k per year, a figure out of reach during the current financial crisis. They needed to find more affordable ways to get young people engaged, and he had looked into options for this alongside Cllr. Boyes.

He emphasised the need to ensure that the options chosen and implemented were the best ones for Cheltenham, with long-term solutions rather than quick fixes. This might be a youth council, but they might also find that other options were more appropriate, and worked more effectively alongside existing initiatives in the town.

Cllr. Flynn raised a point of order, suggesting that the amendment negated the motion. The Monitoring Officer clarified that the amendment sought to refer the motion to Cabinet for further explanation, and did not seem to negate it entirely as it did not reject the youth council proposal out of hand. The motion and amendment would both be referred, and would return for a future Council debate as a larger piece of work that assessed all options.

In seconding the amendment, Cllr. Chidley thanked Cllr. Tailford for bringing it forward. During the recent election campaign in Battledown, many residents had remarked that it was rare for someone under 30 to be involved in politics, and he had found out after his election that he was now one of the youngest councillors in the region. This was not a brag, but the sign of a real problem. He cited the YouGov Youth Survey in 2021, which showed a worrying trend of young people losing faith in democracy. He supported the proposal for a platform to increase youth engagement in the local system, reminding the next generation of politicians that real change could occur at a local level. It would be wise for this to be well-researched and thought through first, to ensure as many young people as possible gained access as a result.

The Mayor clarified that the amendment asked Members to refer the motion to Cabinet. One Member queried whether Members could comment before the referral. The Monitoring Officer clarified that Council was not being asked to approve or reject the motion at this time, just to refer it to another committee for consideration, and it would come back in the future for a full debate.

The Mayor moved to the vote on referral to Cabinet, which was carried.

FOR: 31

AGAINST: 0

ABSTAIN: 2

Motion B

Proposed by Cllr. Tabi Joy and seconded by Cllr. Wendy Flynn.

Divestment Commitment

This council will divest from its own investment holdings in fossil fuel funds, and will request that all pensions managed by Gloucestershire County Council are similarly divested.

In proposing the motion, Cllr. Joy explained that it covered both CBC’s and GCC’s investment holdings, the latter of which were more extensive. It called for divestment of any fossil fuel holdings, which represented nearly 5% of the total sum. Figures published in 2021 suggested that the total fund was worth £2.2bn, meaning that the proportion invested in fossil fuels totalled £100m through either direct or indirect investment. Investments in coal represented around £38m, while oil and gas were around £62m.

She added that the final stage of the IPCC report had come through on the day of the meeting, suggesting that it was now or never for the topic of climate breakdown. She reflected on risk management, but it was difficult to predict the effects of climate breakdown on wider society. Fossil fuel use had a profound negative impact worldwide, especially on air pollution. Investing in renewables offered a new set of opportunities, and the council needed to be diligent about where its money was. There were also financial incentives to divest, as fossil fuel investments could end up being stranded assets.

She acknowledged that most of these reserves were ring-fenced, making it more difficult to divest, but CBC reviewed its strategy every three years. They needed to avoid destructive short-termism in the pursuit of profit. They could request certain measures, for example that the county council create a task force on this topic, or appoint a dedicated responsible investment officer. The primary aim in this urgent situation was monitoring and promoting environmental, social and governance investment. She hoped colleagues would weigh up the proposal carefully and ensure the council was doing its due diligence.

The Monitoring Officer asked for clarification on the task force proposal. Cllr. Joy explained that one possible part of the GCC request could include suggesting that they set one up, but that this did not form part of the motion.

In seconding the motion, Cllr. Flynn echoed the points made by Cllr. Joy. She added that fossil fuel divestment aimed to reduce carbon emissions by accelerating the adoption of the renewable energy transition through the stigmatisation of fossil fuel companies. It was an attempt to reduce climate change by exerting pressure for institutional divestment of assets.

She highlighted the second key priority in the new Corporate Plan, which referred to the council making changes themselves before asking residents to make the same changes to their organisations and lives. The council needed to lead on this and set an example to businesses and individuals. Plenty of time had passed since the declaration of a climate emergency declaration to divest fully from fossil fuels. The county council had also had four years to do this, which was too long.

Cllr. Beale proposed an amendment to the motion, seconded by Cllr. Jeffries.

Motion B (Amendment)

Although the council’s discretionary services are under immense fiscal pressure during of a cost-of-living crisis, Cheltenham Borough Council maintains its commitment to deliver services in an equitable and sustainable way.  

 Cheltenham Borough Council continues its commitment to divest from funds which include fossil fuels. We are already making positive progress on divestment. However, to mitigate financial losses we will action this when it is financially prudent to do so. Ultimately, this will align our investment strategy with our values but also protect CBCs investment strategy and the vital services which residents rely on everyday. 

To be clear, no new investments in fossil fuel funds will be undertaken. Cheltenham’s Green New Deal serves as an example on how we will be investing in a sustainable future for our town. 

This Council resolves:

To invite a representative from the Gloucestershire County Council pension fund to host a members briefing in Cheltenham to understand how they are exiting from fossil fuel funds at County level. 

In proposing the amendment, Cllr. Beale thanked Cllrs. Joy and Flynn for bringing the motion forward, and recognised the importance of accountability and ensuring that rhetoric matched action. Nothing was more important to the council than its commitment to the planet. It was incumbent on everyone to do better and reach new standards together.

The council had committed to the climate emergency several years ago and since then had viewed everything through this lens. Net Zero was the ultimate challenge and they needed to continually review their efforts to move towards a better future. He reiterated the council’s commitment to divest from funds which included fossil fuels. As of the end of February, the equities they held in fossil fuel-focused organisations comprised 0.7% of their overall investment portfolio, but they intended to make that 0.

These equities were part of a larger pooled investment which was managed as a fund, and currently returned £120k per year into the council’s budget, which was used towards local services. Leaving this fund now would incur significant losses in the region of £383k, and require cuts to services as a result. Financial officers and advisors were closely monitoring the situation and would exit from the fund at the earliest opportunity. Of course, they would prefer to make this change immediately, but in a climate of increasing inflation and decreasing government support, they owed it to residents to exit in a controlled manner.

Finally, he noted that staff pension arrangements were held and managed by the county council. CBC would be pleased to organise a briefing for all Members where GCC could demonstrate their commitment to divest from fossil fuels.

Cllr. Flynn raised a point of order, suggesting that the amendment negated the motion. The original motion made a clear request, but the amendment did not. Cllr. Joy queried whether the amendment could be submitted as a separate motion. The Monitoring Officer clarified that it could, but not at this meeting due to the notice required. She also clarified that there were some parts of the amendment that were similar to the original motion, as well as a clear next step of requesting that GCC come and explain what they were doing to divest, so the amendment did not negate the original motion.

Cllr. Joy emphasised the need for urgent action considering the situation. It was imperative to enact more concrete steps, as they were both time- and resource-poor. If the amendment’s proposers didn’t feel it was appropriate, they could vote against it. Whatever resulted from this meeting, it needed to be a long-term plan.

The Mayor moved into debate on the amendment, where the following points were made:

• Divestment from fossil fuels needed to be a responsible financial decision, and it would cost in excess of £400k to do it immediately. The council’s Treasury Management Strategy had just been passed unanimously as the previous item on the agenda, and included a commitment to gradually reduce these investments over time.
• The Green group could instead have brought an amendment to the previous Budget meeting calling for CBC to divest immediately, and explaining where the £400k would come from to pay for it due to the legal requirement for a balanced budget.
• Every council, including Green-led ones, had some level of investments in fossil fuels, and they were all reducing this over time. However, they couldn’t justify dumping them overnight given the cost to the rate payer. The opposition had not explained how they would account for the £400k loss.
• The council needed to be proactive, considering that four years had already passed since their climate change emergency commitment.
• Constructive dialogue with the county council was key so both authorities could learn from one another. Inviting them to the borough council to understand their direction of travel would be of more value than telling them what to do. CBC’s commitment to divesting from unclean investments was clear.

Cllr. Beale thanked Members for their comments on his amendment. The county council’s commitment to Net Zero was reassuring and he looked forward to hearing from them about how they were approaching it.

Cllr. Joy, as the proposer of the original motion, indicated that she wished to accept the amendment, and advocated a proactive and realistic approach that built on the council’s declaration of a climate emergency in 2019. She was happy to support the amendment as one part of an ongoing forward process.

The Mayor confirmed that the amendment had become the substantive motion, and moved into debate on it, where the following points were made:

• The pension fund under consideration here was worth some £3.1bn, so trying to understand what this was invested in and how to divest was a very complex job. Members needed to ensure they did not act rashly and put pensioners in difficulty.
• Divestment was a gradual process as it concerned significant financial commitments, and immediately pulling funds would have a major cost.
• Accepting the amendment was a welcome example of pluralist, consensus-based politics.

There being no further comments, the Mayor moved to the vote on the amended motion, which was carried unanimously.

FOR: 31

AGAINST: 0

ABSTAIN: 0

Motion B

Although the council’s discretionary services are under immense fiscal pressure during of a cost-of-living crisis, Cheltenham Borough Council maintains its commitment to deliver services in an equitable and sustainable way.  

 Cheltenham Borough Council continues its commitment to divest from funds which include fossil fuels. We are already making positive progress on divestment. However, to mitigate financial losses we will action this when it is financially prudent to do so. Ultimately, this will align our investment strategy with our values but also protect CBCs investment strategy and the vital services which residents rely on everyday. 

To be clear, no new investments in fossil fuel funds will be undertaken. Cheltenham’s Green New Deal serves as an example on how we will be investing in a sustainable future for our town. 

This Council resolves:

To invite a representative from the Gloucestershire County Council pension fund to host a members briefing in Cheltenham to understand how they are exiting from fossil fuel funds at County level.