East Sussex Councillors Refuse To Halt Investment In Fossil Fuels

East Sussex county councillors have again declined calls to halt investment in fossil fuels.

On Tuesday (May 9), East Sussex County Council (ESCC) debated a petition originating from Divest East Sussex — a campaign group calling for the East Sussex Pension Fund to withdraw its investments in oil, gas and coal. 

The petition, signed by more than 5,200 residents, called on the county council to halt investments in such industries as well as to offer public support for both a windfall tax on ‘Big Oil’ and a ‘rapid transition’ to green energy.  

Speaking at the meeting lead petitioner Sarah Hazelhurst — a former ESCC employee and pension fund member — said:

“The tide of public opinion is changing as many more citizens and pension fund members recognise the seriousness of the climate emergency. 

“Today we are asking you to do the responsible thing, the prudent thing and the right thing and to show your support for fossil fuel divestment. Put simply you have to decide whose side you are on.”

She added:

“Of course we know that the East Sussex Pension Fund making a divestment commitment would only be a small step in the fight against climate catastrophe, but it is an important step.”

In response to the petition, Conservative councillor Gerard Fox put forward a motion for debate. Among other things, it called on councillors to note that the council’s Pension Committee — which Cllr Fox chairs — is due to consider evidence on the benefits of total divestment in the near future. 

Cllr Fox’s motion also asked councillors to note that the committee is a ‘non-political’ group and that the full council should not seek to pre-determine its decision-making process. 

In other words, Cllr Fox’s motion called on councillors not to support the petition’s calls for divestment as doing so could result in pre-determination.

Cllr Fox said:

“We have asked officers to address a number of key issues at meetings that will follow. It is not really the place of full council to pre-determine the decision of a committee advised by experts, on a report which has yet to be presented to it. 

“The questions to be asked are: to assess the fiduciary and legal consequences of fossil fuel divestment; examine how such a move aligns with relevant guidance and advice; explore how practical act it would be within the context of the access pool; and review the evidence on the efficacy of such an approach to promoting the energy transition.”

In putting forward his motion, Cllr Fox also sought to highlight the fund’s previous work on climate-related investments, describing its current position as one of ‘partial divestment’.

It also called on councillors to express a view that taxation was a matter for national, rather than local, government, effectively disagreeing with another part of the petition. 

While the motion was voted through by the council’s Conservative majority, Cllr Fox’s arguments did not win the support of opposition parties. 

Those parties instead offered support for an amendment (effectively an alternative motion), proposed by Green Party councillor Johnny Denis. 

It was similar to the wording of the petition (calling for tighter rules on windfall tax exemptions and offering support for divestment), but also criticised the pension fund’s “failed” approach of investor engagement with the fossil fuel industry.  

Despite support from Labour, Liberal Democrats and Independent Democrats, Cllr Denis’ amendment was voted down.