Cllr Hanif Alli brought the motion forward at the recent meeting of the full council, and called for Bolton Council to “reaffirm its commitment to ethical investment.”
He said that Greater Manchester Pension Fund (GMPF) has six per cent – about £1.5b – of its portfolio invested in fossil fuel corporations and £241m in “companies who have profited from arms sale, such as the ongoing genocide in Gaza”.
He said: “The links between warfare, environmental destruction, and human suffering are undeniable.
“Armed conflict not only leads to mass civilian casualties – including children – but also inflicts severe ecological damage.
“From weapons production to battlefield destruction and carbon-intensive post-conflict reconstruction, the environmental toll is enormous.”
Cllr Alli said that investment in fossil fuel and arms companies could expose the fund and by extension, the council, to “financial risk, reputational damage and failure to meet future regulatory expectations.”
Cllr Sue Haworth said that there was a precedent for challenging investments based on ethical concerns.
She said: “Investment where we have trade embargos, investment where animal testing may be an issue, arms trading and warfare, so-called blood diamonds or slave metal issues, where species are endangered and so on.”
“We want to stay precise – precise as Greater Manchester Pension Fund stands accused of fiddling while the planet burns.
“I find the GM Pension Fund often deflect questions and choose to describe how much money they are making for pension pots instead.
“So I want to focus on that – on the divestment from fossil fuels issue.”
Cllr Haworth criticised the motion for only listing councils with motions to divest from the arms trade – and not those from fossil fuels.
She said: “Southwark, Waltham Forest, Cardiff, Lambeth and Islington – read out because they’re making progress.
“Greater Manchester Pension Fund is at risk of receiving one of those inaction awards – I think that would be very embarrassing.
“Every man is guilty of the good he did not do.”
Cllr Haworth said that she would not be supporting the motion because of the combination of divestment from fossil fuels and the arms trade.
Cllr Martyn Cox said: “I think this must be the third or maybe the fourth time I’ve spoken in this council chamber against a motion that is trying to determine how the Greater Manchester Pension Fund invests on behalf of the enormous number of pensioners who are reliant on that fund.
“I’ve made this message clear before – we should not and never should play politics with people’s pensions.
“I suspect you’ve not the foggiest idea on how to get a decent return for the pensioners who are dependent on this fund.
“We should not be pursuing our own narrow political aims at the expense of pensioners throughout the North West.”
Addressing the industries targeted by the motion, Cllr Cox referenced an earlier declaration of friendship for the Ukrainian city of Sumy and Polish city of Przemysla.
He said: “Are we really going to pass a motion of friendship for Ukraine and Poland and on the same night pass a motion saying, ‘Well, we might be your friends but we’re not prepared to support you, we’re not prepared to defend you.’
“This motion looks like it’s been written by Putin!
“Look what Cllr Alli has put in his motion – some of these weapons might be going to Ukraine – well I hope they are!
“Because they’re under attack from one of the most vicious dictators the world has ever seen.”
Cllr Cox said that even if we reach net zero tomorrow – fossil fuels will still be needed to extract minerals and create products.
He said: “Who do you think is going to produce batteries if we don’t have mineral extraction? Answer that – how are you going to do it?
“It’s impossible.
“Half the products in this room have been manufactured using carbon – the idea that we are going to get rid of carbon entirely is ridiculous and it will impoverish us.”
Cllr Robert Morrisey said that while he agreed with the ethos behind the motion, he couldn’t support it.
He said: “In my opinion, divesting from fossil fuels is common sense, for the planet, for the members.”
Cllr Morrisey also challenged the idea that ethical investing means “high risk, low returns – that’s not the case,” he said, “and when it comes to divesting from any complicity in genocide, I completely agree.
“However, the motion calls for divesting from all investment in the arms industry and I don’t think – especially with what’s been discussed today – that that is acceptable.
“Not being able to assist in the defence of Ukraine – the defence of human rights, human dignity globally – I don’t think is acceptable.”
Cllr Morrisey added that he thought that they should not be calling for the divestment of two “controversial industries”, but instead for “a direct and progressive ethical stance” from the fund.
He said that Bolton Labour had submitted a motion calling for this to be discussed at the next meeting.
Cllr Nadim Muslim said that divesting from defence would risk losing skilled jobs in Bolton and “send a dangerous signal to our partners and allies”.
He added: “The sort of demonising of defence also starts to stray into the realm of international conflicts – something I fear was part of or maybe actually the real reason for this motion.
“I wasn’t surprised that the protestors who are sitting upstairs – very quietly today I must add – were also handing out leaflets in support of Cllr Alli’s motion.
“Now, they are here for a reason, because in the motion it does specifically mention Palestine.
“So I think it might be a bit of a guise to bring this motion forward – dress it up as an environmental one – but it actually has an international slant to it.
“And as I said before, those sorts of debates are best left outside of this council chamber.”
Cllr Nick Peel said: “You know Cllr Muslim, you’re really going to struggle if you stick with this line that you’re not going to talk about anything outside of Britain – because you’ve talked about two things outside of Britain already tonight.
“You’ve backed yourself into a corner and you’re going to increasingly struggle – that’s my prediction – I bet you wish you hadn’t said it now.
“Listening to Cllr Muslim and Cllr Cox, it’s very clear that they wrote their speeches under the impression that this group was going to support this motion.
“Our stance is quite clear – divesting from fossil fuel investments – I’ve always taken a very pragmatic approach to this.
“I think it can be achieved over a long period of time – I don’t think it necessarily has to be a negative thing.
“You’re absolutely right, those who have said the primary purpose of the pension fund is to look after the funds of those people who have paid in – and give them the best possible return.
“That is absolutely right – and that is the first duty of the pension fund – but that is not, as Cllr Morrisey said, a never-say-never scenario.
“I am not going to support a motion that seeks to damage the UK defence industry.”
Have a story? Get in touch at eoin.mccaul@newsquest.co.uk
Cllr Peel said it was recently announced that the Government would be investing in major companies in Horwich and Bolton in the EV and armed forces industries and they would be supporting this.
He added: “What the motion does is it seriously damages this country’s ability to play a full role in NATO – and NATO has a full role in providing protection in the world.
“The UK armed forces have not been on an offensive footing for some time – they are humanitarian in much of what they do in trouble spots and dangerous places around the world – often being there as peacekeepers to save lives.
“They need equipment to do that, they need a defence industry to do that.
“Absolutely yes – if there’s a direct involvement in atrocities or genocide – there’s no argument.
“Politics will always come into it, Cllr Muslim, politics will always play a part in this.
“Because I’m sure you wouldn’t want to be part of anything that backed modern-day slavery, anything that backed genocide, anything that backed drug cartels.
“I’m sure that wouldn’t be a political statement according to you, but to everybody else it would be a political statement.”
He reiterated that an alternative motion had been put in for the next full council meeting.
READ MORE: Smithills: Bolton Council rejects petition for Deene Road adoption
READ MORE: Bolton Council enlists more gritters in readiness for winter
READ MORE: Bolton: Roadworks could face charges for lane closures
Cllr Alli said: “I would like to thank all the Labour councillors for what you’ve said and all your contributions to this motion – I actually agree with everything you’ve said.
“I understand that in the wording, it does read like it’s against Ukraine, but I can guarantee to you – the Green Party, myself and Bolton Green Party – we’re all with Ukraine.
“I’m going to carry on with the motion but I want people to understand that the Green Party and myself – we are with Ukraine.
“It’s written in that manner and I get how people have read it – but really it was arms to regimes that commit war crimes in those places.
“And as we know, war is complicated – the war in Ukraine is complicated, arms are coming from all over the show.
“They’re being sold – even our arms and NATO arms are being sold – to other parties that are then committing war crimes.”
The council voted against the motion with five votes in favour, 47 against and one abstention.