Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill
Monday 3rd July 2023
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 212 / Noes: 272 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:53 - The House divided: - Ayes: 268 / Noes: 70 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I hope the House will allow me first to pay tribute to Lord Kerslake, who, as the House will know, died over the weekend after a short illness. Bob Kerslake was a true public servant, steeped throughout his professional life in local and central Government, and wholly dedicated throughout his career to improving the lives of citizens. He began his career with Greater London Council and went on to run, with distinction, Sheffield City Council—the fourth largest in England—before making the switch to the corridors of Whitehall. He was the first chief executive of the Homes and Communities Agency, the forerunner to Homes England, a vital arm of Government in making sure that affordable housing is available to all. He was deservedly promoted to become permanent secretary to the Department for Communities and Local Government and, later, head of the home civil service, where he served with great distinction and kindness. Speaking personally as a Minister in the Governments where he served, I was deeply grateful to Bob for his dedication, his generosity of spirit and his wise advice.
After leaving Government, Bob led the inquiry into the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. More recently, he chaired the UK2070 Commission on regional inequalities. My colleagues and I greatly valued his work on homelessness with the Kerslake commission, and I think we all agree that his energy, knowledge and wisdom will be greatly missed. I know that right hon. and hon. Members across the House will wish to join me in sending our deepest condolences to his family in their grief. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I thank you, Mr Speaker, and colleagues across the House.
The Bill does four things: it honours a manifesto promise to which this Government recommitted in the last Queen’s Speech; it affirms the important principle that UK foreign policy is a matter for the UK Government; it ensures that local authorities concentrate on serving their residents, not directing resources inefficiently; and, critically, it provides protection for minority communities, especially the Jewish community, against campaigns that harm community cohesion and fuel antisemitism.
In our 2019 manifesto, this Government committed to
“ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries.”
The Bill does just that—no more and no less.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I think it does a fifth thing, which is to introduce a thought crime. Were I to be a leader of a local authority opposed to the provisions of this Bill, once it became an Act, if I continued to say that I disagreed with its provisions and what I might wish to have done with the powers I retained were those provisions not to have been made law, I would be breaking the law. That cannot be right in a free society, can it?
Michael Gove
It would not be right if the Bill restricted local authorities from adopting policies that they considered to be in line with Government policy. It is also the case that it would be problematic if we were to restrict freedom of speech in any way, but the Bill does not do that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
Not at this point—I will in a second.
It is important to stress what the Bill does not do. It does not restrict local authorities adopting policies in line with formal, agreed Government sanctions, embargoes and restrictions. It does not impede local authorities considering legitimate commercial factors related to business with a foreign state, and exercising due diligence in the award of contracts. And it does not prevent a local authority from exercising due diligence when considering whether a supplier or investment target might be involved in environmental misconduct, bribery, competition law infringements or labour misconduct, including human trafficking and modern slavery. In no way does the Bill circumscribe anyone’s right to freedom of speech or conscience.
What the Bill does do is prevent local authorities from singling out individual nations for discriminatory treatment on the basis of an ideological opposition to that nation and its fundamental basis. Action is required here because there is an existing, organised and malign campaign that aims to target and delegitimise the world’s only Jewish state. That campaign seeks to persuade public bodies to make commercial decisions solely on the basis of harming that state and its people.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way so soon in this debate.
Is not the reason every single Conservative Member stood on a manifesto commitment to bring forward such legislation that we understand that there is something fundamentally illiberal, leftist and with deep, ugly connections to antisemitism at the heart of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement? That is what we are trying to tackle today.
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall go on to say more about the nature of the BDS campaign because we are not talking in the abstract; we are talking in concrete terms about a campaign that exists, and has been in operation now for nearly 20 years, based on a premise that seeks to delegitimise the state of Israel. The campaign also leads directly, as I shall point out, to antisemitic incidents and a loss of community cohesion.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I just remind the Secretary of State that the Bill goes way beyond the activities of the state of Israel and will apply potentially to other areas of foreign policy, too. Has he considered whether the interaction of clause 1(7) and clause 4 will disproportionately interfere with the freedom of expression, and of conscience and belief, of individuals who are making, or have a stake in, the procurement and investment decisions of public bodies? My view and that of many other lawyers who have looked at the Bill is that it will. Why has he not produced a human rights memorandum analysing the extent to which the Bill interferes with rights under article 10 and article 9, on freedom of belief, of the European convention on human rights, and article 19 of the international covenant on civil and political rights? Will he do so?
Michael Gove
Absolutely. Nothing in the Bill conflicts with any aspect of the ECHR, not least article 10.
Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend is bringing this legislation to the House today. He rightly mentioned the unsavoury connotations of much of the criticism that the Bill is facing, particularly in connection with the BDS movement. On that point, could he clarify his thoughts on Richard Hermer KC, who has provided advice to the shadow Front-Bench team on this legislation? Mr Hermer has previously authored a chapter in a book called “Corporate complicity in Israel’s occupation: evidence from the London session of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine”, which is edited by some extremely interesting people—I fear that they are interesting in the most negative sense. Is this really the calibre of individual who should be advising the official Opposition?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend raises an important question because the Opposition have tabled a reasoned amendment. I believe they have done so in good faith. As the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) pointed out, some lawyers take a different view from the Government. One of those lawyers was commissioned by the Labour party to produce a legal opinion, but the gentleman concerned, a distinguished KC, has a record in this area—a record of political commitments that everyone can see clearly predispose him towards a political and particular view on this question.
Michael Gove
No. I am merely pointing out what is in the public domain. Let us turn to the nature of the BDS campaign.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Michael Gove
Not at this point. The BDS movement deliberately asks public bodies to treat Israel differently from any other nation on the globe. It asks them to treat the middle east’s only democracy as a pariah state and to end links with those who have a commercial presence there. Let me be clear: there are legitimate reasons to criticise the Israeli Government, to question their policy and, if individuals so wish, to repudiate their leadership, as there are with many other countries.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Michael Gove
No. Nothing in the Bill prevents or impedes the loudest of criticisms of Israel’s Government and leaders, including by elected politicians at all levels of government.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
Michael Gove
No. But the BDS movement asks that, alone among nations, Israel be treated as illegitimate in itself—
Michael Gove
No. The founder of the BDS movement, Omar Barghouti, has been clear in his opposition to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. He has attacked what he calls the “racist principles of Zionism”—that is, the fundamental right of the Jewish people to self-determination. The man who founded and is in charge of the BDS movement has argued that Zionist principles
“maintain Israel’s character as a colonial, ethnocentric, apartheid state.”
On that basis, he opposes any idea of a two-state solution—a secure Israel alongside a viable and democratic Palestine. Instead, the BDS movement’s leader wants a
“one-state solution…where, by definition, Jews will be a minority.”
It is entirely open to any individual to agree with that proposition, but it is no part of this Government’s determination or intent to give any heart or succour to a movement that argues that the two-state solution is wrong and that Jews should be a minority in one state.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend help us here? As the effect of Israeli policy since 1967 has been to build out of existence the possibility of a two-state solution by settling 700,000 Jews who have arrived in the state of Israel, with their right to go there under Israeli law, it is now no longer possible for there to be a two-state solution, so what is British policy to be?
Michael Gove
British policy is, as my hon. Friend knows, to promote a two-state solution. I know that he has a long, passionate and committed interest in this subject and I respect the compassion and knowledge that he brings to the debate but, respectfully, I disagree with him. I believe that a two-state solution is the right approach, which the BDS movement does not believe.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I very much welcome the legislation that the Secretary of State is introducing, and we as a party will support it when the time comes tonight. There are many examples in Northern Ireland of councils having overstepped the mark by boycotting goods from Israel and penalising and focusing attention on the small Jewish community. Local authorities should be working hard to support diversity and good relations, not ridiculing and condemning our small and minority communities. It is clear to me that the point of the legislation is to make sure that that does not happen, so let us make sure that it goes through tonight.
Michael Gove
I agree, as I do almost always, with every word that the hon. Gentleman said.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I will take interventions in due course, but I want to make a little progress first.
I want to be clear about what the BDS movement is and what it does. The BDS movement is not, in its origins or operation, a campaign that is designed to change Israel’s Government or shift Israel’s policy. It is designed to erase Israel’s identity as a home for the Jewish people. Again, the founders of the BDS campaign have been clear, saying:
“A Jewish state in Palestine in any shape or form cannot but contravene the basic rights of the…Palestinian population and…ought to be opposed categorically”.
Alongside those who lead the BDS movement on the BDS national committee sit members of the Council of National and Islamic Forces in Palestine, a coalition of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—all militant organisations that are proscribed by this Government.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Michael Gove
I will give way in due course, but not at this point.
The effects of the campaign are sadly manifold. The BDS campaign opposes efforts to bring Israelis and Palestinians together to broker peace through a two-state solution, opposes cultural exchanges between Israelis and Palestinians, and fights against co-operation between Israeli and Palestinian universities. BDS has specifically denounced an organisation called OneVoice, which is a joint Palestinian-Israeli youth organisation that campaigns to end the occupation, campaigns against settlements and campaigns for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Because OneVoice does not use the rhetoric of apartheid that BDS deploys, and because it does believe that there should be a Jewish state, it is denounced by the BDS movement.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I will make more progress and then give way.
Where the BDS campaign has been adopted and endorsed there have, unfortunately, been real community-cohesion problems. We have seen an increase in antisemitic events following on from the activities of the BDS movement, including supermarkets removing kosher products from their shelves following specific protests. The Community Security Trust has recently recorded the highest ever number of antisemitic incidents.
In evidence adduced before the Supreme Court in 2020, the following point was made. The evidence said that
“although anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian campaigning in itself is”,
obviously,
“not anti-Semitic, there is a pattern of anti-Semitic behaviour in connection with campaigns promoting a boycott of Israel. For example, protests outside an Israeli-owned shop in central Manchester in summer 2014 led to some Jewish people using the shop being racially abused by protestors, including shoppers”—
I hope the House will forgive me—
“being called ‘Child killer’, comments such as ‘You Jews are scum and the whole world hates you’, and Nazi salutes being made at Jewish shoppers using the Israeli-owned store. On social media, hashtags such as #BDS, #BoycottIsrael and #FreePalestine are regularly used by people posting anti-Semitic tweets and comments.”
That is why Labour Friends of Israel has rightly stated:
“BDS damages communal relations and fosters antisemitism at home, while doing nothing to further the cause of peace and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. Public bodies should not be singling out the world’s only Jewish state for boycotts.”
Luke Akehurst, a Labour NEC member speaking in a personal capacity, has also argued that we should
“welcome the Government’s proposed bill to end the ability of public sector bodies to carry out boycotts and divestment.”
Mr Akehurst added that he was against BDS more widely
“because it deepens the divisions in the Middle East conflict rather than encouraging dialogue and coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians. BDS demonises and delegitimises Israel”.
I agree with Labour Friends of Israel, I agree with Luke Akehurst, I agree with the Board of Deputies, and I agree with the Jewish Leadership Council, all of whom back this Bill. I agree with the French and German Governments who have taken action against the BDS movement, and I agree with all 50 Governors of US states—Democrat and Republican—who have denounced the BDS movement. The question for every Member of this House is whether they stand with us against antisemitism or not.
Alicia Kearns
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Although I disagree fundamentally with the point that he has just tried to make, my question to him is this: has a single diplomatic post specifically advised that the Bill contravenes our UN Security Council requirements and resolutions?
Alicia Kearns
Has any diplomatic post specifically advised the Government that what is being proposed this evening in the Bill contravenes our UN Security Council resolutions?
Mr Dhesi
This ill-drafted Bill has multiple contradictions, as excellent legal advice has highlighted, and it may actually contravene international law. Although the Secretary of State may be happy that he will have these additional powers, the Bill will no doubt be subject to multiple legal challenges, and therefore a lot of taxpayers’ money will once again be wasted by the Government. Does he concede that well beyond BDS and the middle east, the Bill may hamper the UK’s ability to protect and preserve human rights across the world?
Michael Gove
No, I absolutely do not. The Bill enhances the UK Government’s ability to protect human rights across the globe. On the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about legal challenge, it is the case that organisations such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and others have challenged the Government in this area in the past. They may do so again, but I am confident that the Bill is legally watertight. On the point—
Michael Gove
No, I am answering the hon. Gentleman’s question first.
On the point about the legal advice from Mr Hermer KC, as I have said, we believe that that legal advice is flawed and it comes from someone who has a clear political record of partiality on this question.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. I hope he will recognise that many of us in this House have stood up to the BDS movement. Therefore, his rather intemperate suggestion that only if we support this legislation are we against antisemitism does not pass muster. Does he recognise that those of us who would like to see local authorities challenged—perhaps through the Equality Act 2010—can find troublesome elements in this Bill? It is almost as if his myopia about the BDS movement has blinded him to the consequences of this and what it could do.
The Secretary of State boasted earlier that there were exemptions around labour rights and environmental laws, but is it not ironic that the Bill does not include an exemption around genocide? Those of us who have communities that are desperately concerned about the Uyghurs, the Rohingyas or what happened in Sri Lanka recognise that this legislation could stop our speaking out for them. Will he work with us—those of us who want to tackle antisemitism and to stand up for human rights—and rethink his proposals?
Michael Gove
I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady and I acknowledge her work to fight antisemitism and stand against the BDS movement—more than acknowledge it, I applaud her for it. I would say three things. First, there is absolutely nothing in the Bill that prevents the UK Government or other public bodies from taking appropriate action against Myanmar, against China over the treatment of the Uyghurs or against Russia and Belarus over their aggression towards Ukraine. I have seen no solid legal advice to suggest that is the case at all.
Secondly, if the hon. Lady or anybody else wants to table amendments in Committee that can improve the Bill, I am completely open to them. I have not yet seen any such amendments, but I know she and others in this House are skilled in drafting legislation, and I look forward to seeing the appropriate amendments. However, as we have seen in the past, attempts to deal with the specific menace that the BDS campaign creates through guidance have not been sufficient. Primary legislation is required. The shape of that legislation I hope we can decide together across the House.
Dr Whitford
The Secretary of State mentioned that it is the UK’s long-standing policy to support a two-state solution. It is also the UK’s long-standing policy to differentiate between Israel and the occupied territories. The UK endorsed United Nations resolution 2334. Why is there no differentiation in the Bill between Israel and the occupied territories? Does that not increase the risk of antisemitism?
Michael Gove
No; they are separated in the Bill. I am afraid the hon. Lady is wrong.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is being very generous in listening to the rather strong opinions on the Bill, but can I press him again to consider alternative ways to deal with the threat of BDS without offering the glass jaw that I see clause 3(7) as presenting to parliamentarians, and to work with me and others to find a better way to do this? I will also say that ad hominem attacks on independent counsel, whoever they are, are not advisable and not wise.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. Of course we are completely open to the consideration of any amendments that can give better effect to the shared intentions that we have across the House to deal with this movement. However, Israel is there in the Bill because of the clear nature and the clear and present activities of the BDS campaign. Were there to be an alternative, one would have to make sure that it dealt effectively with that area.
Sir Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the generosity he is showing in giving way. I support what he says about the importance of setting a clear marker on the menace of the BDS movement and its impact across communities. Does he agree that the Bill potentially goes further, in a positive way, by making the point that it is for local government to spend taxpayers’ money on services and other issues for their constituents in the best available way, not using it—or abusing it—on ideological issues, and that, whether in expenditure for the local community or through local government pension scheme investments, it should be aimed at getting the best return for constituents and beneficiaries, not at driving ideological wedges between communities?
Michael Gove
I think my right hon. Friend is completely right. Local government has a critical role in delivering public services, including support for the most vulnerable in our communities. It is vital that central Government support it in that endeavour and that local government should not be diverted from its core purpose by other temptations.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Secretary of State said earlier that the Bill fulfils a manifesto commitment, but the manifesto commitment was not country-specific; it was country-agnostic. There was no mention of Israel or BDS in it. Indeed, another manifesto commitment was that we would champion freedom of expression and tolerance. He will recall that a former Secretary of State for Education wrote to all our universities to ensure that they allowed freedom of expression. How is that compatible with clause 4(1)(b), which states that any person who
“would intend to act in such a way”—
of having a boycott on any part of a foreign country—
“were it lawful to do so”,
would be prohibited from doing so and would be penalised by the courts for doing so? How does that represent championing freedom of expression and tolerance?
Michael Gove
I should say to my hon. Friend, whose commitment to advancing peace and to freedom of speech I respect, that all the Bill seeks to do is to ensure that boycotts and boycotts in name only cannot be brought forward. It has absolutely no effect—chilling or otherwise—on the exercise of freedom of speech.
Tim Loughton
I agree with the Secretary of State that there is a particular problem to do with Israel and BDS, but the Bill is not country-specific. Nor is it specific on whether it applies to investment or disinvestment. Of all the Bills I have ever read, it is particularly woolly in its drafting. Will the Secretary of State respond to a few scenarios? We found out that a number of local authorities in this country are twinned with Chinese towns. If they choose to un-twin with those Chinese towns, will they fall foul of the Bill? They are investing in twinning offices and travel expenses. If they were instead to set up a twinning agreement with a Taiwanese town, for example, or to set up a Hong Kong freedom centre, would they fall foul of the legislation? Indeed, under clause 1(2), on decisions
“influenced by political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct”,
would flying a Ukrainian flag over a town hall fall foul of the Bill as well?
Michael Gove
I cannot see that any of those actions would fall foul of the legislation in any way. It is clearly the case that, in each of the areas that my hon. Friend mentions, particularly with respect to China, the Government are taking appropriate action to demonstrate our consistent disapproval of China’s behaviour, not just in Xinjiang but specifically, as he rightly mentions, in Hong Kong.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
Michael Gove
Not at the moment.
It is important, following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), to make clear that there is no evidence that anything in the Bill will impede our ability or that of local government to act against modern slavery in Xinjiang or environmental misconduct in Myanmar, or to maintain a united front against Russian aggression. Nor is there anything in the Bill to prevent any individual, including councillors, from articulating in their own right any opinion that they personally hold. It is also important to make clear that nothing in the Bill changes in any way UK Government foreign policy or our position on the middle east peace process. Nothing in it alters our support for an adherence to UN resolutions, and nothing in it explicitly or implicitly supports current Israeli Government policy towards settlements in the west bank.
Mr Wragg
By virtue of my right hon. Friend’s capacious mind, he has had the UK’s foreign policy delegated to his Department as well. He said in answer to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns)—indeed, he just reiterated the point—that nothing in the Bill will endanger our international obligations. Presumably, with that capacious mind, he has read the write-round from the Foreign Office, which says directly that FCDO lawyers advise that the clause on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories would significantly increase the risk of the UK being in breach of our commitments under UN Security Council resolution 2334. Has he had a word with our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about that?
Michael Gove
Yes. Across Government, every Minister supports the Bill, and quite rightly, because it gives effect to our manifesto commitment and ensures that we live up to the responsibilities that we have to deal with divisive campaigns that operate on the ground in a way that adversely affects minority communities and, most especially, the Jewish community.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I am coming to the end of my remarks.
I recognise that many people have, in good faith, expressed concerns about aspects of the Bill, but I point out that the provisions are specifically designed to provide a high bar to ensure that local government acts as it should in accordance with the interest of its citizens, to ensure that UK foreign policy is articulated with one voice, and to ensure in particular that a campaign that those on both Front Benches are clear has been responsible for the demonisation of the state of Israel, for the delegitimsation of its right to exist and for discrimination against Jewish people in this country, is, at last, dealt with. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As I said earlier, the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected. I call Lisa Nandy to move that amendment.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House, while opposing any discrimination or prejudice in the economic activities of public bodies, believing that all such bodies must act without bias or selectivity when making ethical decisions on procurement and investment and recognising the impact selective and biased campaigns have had on the Jewish community in particular, declines to give a Second Reading to the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, because the Bill risks significantly undermining support for groups around the world facing persecution, for example the Uyghur, who are currently victims of grave and systemic human rights abuses, is incompatible with international law and the due diligence of public bodies, undermines the UK’s long-standing cross-party position in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Golan Heights by conflating these with the State of Israel and running counter to UN Security Council Resolutions, singles out the State of Israel in effect creating the issue it intends to solve, seeks to enforce its provisions by giving unprecedented powers to the Secretary of State beyond those enjoyed by the police and the security services, places unprecedented restrictions on the ability of public bodies, many of them directly elected, to express a view on policy, current, proposed and desired, has potential widespread and negative impacts on local government pension funds, limits freedom of speech and is likely to be subject to repeated and extended legal challenge by reason of its conflict with established legal principles; and therefore urges the Government to bring forward alternative proposals.”
I recognise the Secretary of State’s very touching words on Lord Kerslake. He was Lord Kerslake to some, but Bob to those of us who have benefited over many years from his ceaseless encouragement and advice. His knowledge of central Government and local government was unparalleled. His commitment as a genuine public servant who cared deeply about people will be badly missed. He was taken from us too soon, and I would like to add our voice to the very touching tribute from the Secretary of State.
It is perhaps in the spirit that Bob would have wanted that I approach the Bill—on a note of consensus, on something that ought to be a matter of consensus for Labour Members. I recognise that there are deeply held feelings about these issues, and I want to acknowledge that Members in this debate must be heard. I shall, of course, welcome interventions, but I will seek to balance that with the need of Members on both sides of the House, whether I disagree with them or not, to make their views known.
I want to begin by saying to the Secretary of State that we recognise the problem which he says the Bill is designed to tackle. It is therefore deeply frustrating that the Government have introduced a Bill that is needlessly broad, with sweeping, draconian powers and far-reaching effects. Instead of Members on both sides of the House having the opportunity to come together and welcome long-overdue action, he faces genuine, legitimate, heartfelt opposition from Conservative Members; from groups who face persecution, such as the Uyghur, who thought that we stood with them; from human rights groups; and from local government. I have watched the Secretary of State lose Government Members because of the tone that he has struck in the debate. I hope that as the debate progresses he will listen to some of those concerns.
I say to the House that it does not have to be this way. It is not, in our view, wrong for public bodies to take ethical investment and procurement decisions. In fact, there is a long history of councils, universities and others taking a stance in defence of freedom and human rights. In the case of elected councils, their electors often expect them to do just that. There is a difference between legitimate criticism of a foreign state’s Government and what some individuals and organisations have tried to do in recent years, which the Secretary of State outlined well. To seek to target Israel alone, to hold it to different standards from other countries, to question its right to exist, to equate the actions of the Israeli Government with Jewish people, and in doing so create hate and hostility against Jewish people here in the UK is completely wrong.
There is at least one example of a publicly funded body that has taken a stance against the state of Israel that has effectively cancelled Jewish culture here in the UK. We will always stand against that. Most public bodies would not dream of behaving like that, but even one incident has unacceptable and far-reaching consequences for the Jewish community, increasing hate and hostility at a time when antisemitic attacks have reached a peak, children learn behind gates, and security guards stand outside synagogues.
Stephen Crabb
The hon. Lady is speaking really well, and she gave a remarkable Second Reading speech on the Holocaust Memorial Bill.
The hon. Lady is trying to suggest that examples of BDS are few and far between, and that it is a legitimate field of activity for public bodies to comment on foreign policy and express ethical concerns. The trouble is, time and time again, it is about BDS and it is about targeting Israel. When the Welsh Government issued a procurement advice note two years ago, they were trying to single out Israel yet again, and no Labour MP said a thing about it. Is that not the problem?
Lisa Nandy
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I feel strongly that BDS offers no meaningful route to peace either for the Palestinians or for the Israelis. I can assure him that when BDS is used as an argument for the total economic, social and cultural isolation of the world’s only Jewish state, not only will I speak out but I have spoken out time and time again. As far as I know, I am the only Member in the House—there may be others, and I apologise in advance if I have missed anyone—who has gone directly to take on those who argue for a boycott, divestment and sanctions against the state of Israel and for a one-state solution. I have taken on that argument, because I firmly believe that it is wrong and unhelpful. As I have just made clear to the House, this might not be every public body—I do not believe for a moment that it is—but one incident is too many. It has profound effects on the Jewish community.
That is why so many people in the Jewish community have fought long and hard for action to tackle this problem, and it is why we support them. In fact, we were sufficiently concerned about it that earlier this year we tried to amend the Procurement Bill to ensure that when councils take ethical decisions, they do so in line with an ethical framework and Government guidance and apply those decisions across the board, not seeking to single out any one country for differential treatment. We believe that that amendment offered clarity and certainty to our elected officials and councils, and security for the Jewish community, and we were disappointed that the Government voted it down. However, we continue to believe that there is not—and never should be— disagreement between us on that principle.
I also do not believe there is disagreement between us on whether we oppose the policy of boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel. Opposing that policy is a long-standing Labour position, and it will not change. As I said to the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) a moment ago, it is something I feel so strongly about that I have taken the opportunity to debate with those who expound that policy and who believe in a one-state solution, which we thoroughly oppose. I have made the case that talk of a one-state solution and boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel offers no meaningful route to peace for Palestinians or Israelis. Over the past decade, the one bright spot on a very difficult horizon that I have seen on my trips to the middle east has been the co-existence and joint venture projects that have flourished, through which BDS drives a coach and horses.
We on the Labour Benches do not claim that all those who support BDS, despite our profound disagreement with them on that issue, are antisemitic. Our concern is with those who have tried to whip up hostility towards Jewish people under the cover of either BDS or the targeting of Israel, particularly those who seek the total economic, social and cultural isolation of the world’s only Jewish state. That is what we must deal with, in a way that is enforceable—that has real impact and real teeth—and that tackles the problem it is designed to solve.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we have worked hard to ensure that we are not antisemitic, and that for the Minister to display what he has done in the Chamber does no good to our democracy? This is a very badly written Bill—it is not a good Bill—and the Minister’s suggestion that anyone who votes against it is antisemitic is just a disgrace and something he should withdraw.
Lisa Nandy
This is a debate that needs far less heat and far more light, because we are talking about real people—about communities in the UK who are among the most marginalised and discriminated against in our country. I thank the Secretary of State for acknowledging in his opening remarks that Labour Front Benchers are acting in good faith in the approach we have taken, but I would echo a note of caution: we should not in any sense suggest that Members, of all parties in this House, who have expressed profound reservations about the Bill in front of us can be deemed to be antisemitic. They are not. They are participating in democracy and giving voice to real concerns. They are doing what we were sent to this House to do: scrutinise legislation and ensure that it has the intended impact. I encourage Members to continue to do so, because a Bill that is designed to promote and protect community cohesion can proceed only with the broadest possible consent.
Joanna Cherry
I thank the hon. Lady for what she has just said, because I also found the Secretary of State’s suggestion that those of us who oppose the Bill are condoning antisemitism, or are in fact antisemitic, to be disgraceful. Has she, like me, seen a public letter to the Secretary of State from a number of British-based Jewish academic experts in the fields of Jewish studies, the study of antisemitism and Israel studies, including my dear friend Professor Francesca Klug OBE, visiting professor of human rights at the London School of Economics? They have expressed the view that this legislation is damaging and wrong-headed and should be withdrawn. Will the hon. Lady confirm that that is a letter from leading British Jewish academics?
Lisa Nandy
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for raising those concerns. We are keen that all the voices in this debate ought to be heard; I have heard different views from across the Jewish community, but I have to say to her that the overwhelming view I have heard is that there is a desperate need to tackle this very real problem. The strength of feeling in the Jewish community that we must legislate to tackle this problem is overwhelming. I do not want for one moment to deny that that is what I have heard in my frequent conversations with the Jewish community, but as I will outline, there are serious problems with the Bill that need to be addressed.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I am grateful for the hon. Lady for giving way, and for the tone she has struck. As someone who has a significant proportion of Jewish constituents, I speak in defence of them. The BDS movement and its increased presence on university campuses has seen the Community Security Trust state that there has been a 22% increase in campus antisemitism. We are now in a situation where many of my constituents will not go to university because they face such hostility, so the enthusiasm for the Bill may not be about its drafting, but about the aims that it seeks to achieve.
Lisa Nandy
That is absolutely right. In fact, the Union of Jewish Students, which has expressed real concerns about the Bill—the very students who have often been the targets of the appalling abuse and attacks that the hon. Gentleman has outlined—is clear that it wants to see this problem tackled. I hope that is a basis on which we can proceed across the House in a debate that, as I have said, needs far more light and far less heat. I remain confident that, with good faith and good will on everyone’s part, we can find a way to tackle what is a very real problem for the Jewish community in this country.
I will take a moment to explain why the Bill does not do what the Government intend it to do. Clause 1 attempts to ban public bodies from taking decisions influenced by
“political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct.”
We have commissioned legal advice that suggests there are two readings of the clause. I would just say to some Conservative Members that a King’s counsel—a distinguished King’s counsel who happens to disagree about the legal impact of this legislation—deserves a hearing and deserves respect. If in a democracy those who disagree with us are accused of acting dishonestly or in bad faith, we are in a very dark place indeed. That legal advice suggests that on first reading the clause applies only when it relates to specific territories. That would create the absurd situation where public bodies could refuse goods from China because of general disregard for human rights, but could not refuse cotton goods from Xinjiang because of concerns about genocide against the Uyghur population.
The second reading of the clause, which I imagine is what the Government intend, is that public bodies are banned from having any regard at all to human rights violations of foreign Governments unless they are expressly permitted by this Government. There are a few exceptions in the schedule referred to in clause 3—labour rights, bribery and the environment—but not genocide, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has said, or systematic torture or grave breaches of the Geneva convention. After the horrors of the second world war, it was British diplomats who held the pen, crafting the international legal system that recognised that some crimes are so grave that they should never be acceptable. What has changed that gives the Government grounds to create two tiers through this Bill—to deem slavery unacceptable, but remain silent on the issue of genocide? Have we given up believing that these things matter?
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she share my concerns that the Bill will weaken our voice on the international stage in tackling human rights abuses? It will enable many regimes with appalling human rights records, or companies that have track records of labour law violations or environmental recklessness, to continue without consequence, including where those abuses are incompatible with international law.
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that concern, which has also been raised with me. I defer to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who I know will make a contribution in due course.
What is not clear to me and other Labour Members is why the Government have sought to draw this Bill’s powers so broadly. It is not just breathtaking in its reach; it is deeply contradictory, because the Bill itself accepts that there will be times when public bodies will take a view about the conduct of foreign Governments on specific grounds, such as modern slavery. In fact, the Secretary of State wrote to councils last year urging them to do so in the case of Russia, and has since signalled his intent to add Russia and Belarus to the list of exceptions allowed by clause 3. Only two years ago in this House, I sat on these Benches as we proudly and rightly passed the Magnitsky regulations, which recognised the power of economic sanctions to direct state conduct and raise global standards. However, the Secretary of State is now proposing a Bill that will prevent—for example—the Department for Business and Trade from taking human rights violations into account when deciding whether to grant export credit guarantees. Surely he can see the problem. The Cameron Government became a signatory to the UN guiding principles on business and human rights a decade ago. The Government’s own action plan makes it clear that businesses have a corporate responsibility to uphold human rights and to monitor those they deal with commercially. After years of promising to hand over powers and spending decisions to Mayors, combined authorities and councils, is the Secretary of State seriously saying that they are not capable of exercising the same duty?
There are other areas of deep confusion in this Bill that we believe will open up the prospect of ongoing legal challenge, and I know that has been raised by Conservative Members. Clause 1 bans action that a reasonable observer would conclude is motivated by moral or political disapproval of a foreign Government, but on these deeply contested notions what constitutes a “reasonable observer”?
Clause 4 is even more problematic. It prohibits public bodies from expressing a view not just about how they intend to act, but how they would have done so had the law not been in force. It is difficult to know how public bodies, particularly those that are elected, should respond to this. In recent years, many councils have, for example, been asked by their own residents not to use Chinese companies with links to Xinjiang. My own council is one of them. Under this Bill, faced with thousands of people signing a public petition, a council would not even be able to give any indication of whether or not it agreed with its own residents. Our legal advice suggests that this extraordinary situation is likely to be incompatible with article 10 of the European convention on human rights.
Clause 3(7) creates even more confusion. It singles out Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan heights as places for which no exemption can ever be made. The long-standing position of the UK Government is to support a two-state solution along pre-1967 lines that protects and respects the security and right to self-determination of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. This clause drives a coach and horses through that, according the occupied territories the same protected status as Israel and in effect conflating the two. It contradicts established Government policy, and I find it hard to believe that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has agreed to this. I note the questions from two Conservative Members, and I am deeply concerned that it appears that the Government and the Secretary of State have not even asked that question. It appears that Conservative Members have seen a circular from Foreign Office officials raising objections to this Bill, yet the Secretary of State has not. I urge him to look closely at that matter before the Bill proceeds.
Dr Whitford
The hon. Lady talks about when she has visited Israel or Palestine, as I have done regularly with the breast cancer projects I am involved with in Gaza and the west bank. The thing is that the settlements are illegal under international law, and they have been condemned by the Government in the past. Obviously, companies, pension funds, councils and devolved Governments who try to act ethically and do not wish to purchase settlement goods, which are illegal, would be floored by that clause. How does that match with current UK policy?
Lisa Nandy
I hope, as the debate goes on, that there may be an answer to this, but I have to confess that so far I am at a loss as to what it might be. Where does this leave our commitment to international law, given that it cuts across UN resolutions, as Conservative Members have highlighted, and weakens Britain’s stated support for a two-state solution, as the hon. Member has said?
The legal advice we have received strongly suggests that this is likely to be in breach of our international law obligations. Furthermore, it will force the UK courts, which have traditionally been reluctant to adjudicate on issues relating to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, to take a view. All of these confusing and contradictory measures raise the very real prospect of protracted legal challenge. One of the Conservative Members recently called this woolly. Surely the Secretary of State can see that protracted legal challenge over the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the practice of boycott, divestment and sanctions would not be in the interests of community cohesion, which is the very thing this Bill is designed to protect.
Lisa Nandy
I will not give way, if my hon. Friend will forgive me. A lot of people are wishing to speak, and given that she has made one intervention, I will make a bit of progress.
As if that were not bad enough, it seems that nobody in Government has thought of the consequences for local government pension funds, which is arguably the one area where councils have to have a global outlook. Let me give the Secretary of State a practical example. In recent months, as he will know, three Israeli companies have moved their money outside Israel due to concerns about the financial risks created by the contentious reforms to the judiciary. If a local government pension fund were to do the same, this Bill would open it up to legal challenge, forcing it to prove to a reasonable observer, whatever that is, that its decision was on financial, not moral grounds.
Writing in the Local Government Chronicle, the director of pensions at Westminster Council asks what happens
“where an analyst has anticipated that a company’s value will decrease because of ESG decisions it has made… if that strategy falls within the new law’s definition of not being in line with UK foreign defence policy, and the law therefore states that the fund must remain invested, and the fund therefore loses value, who will pay for that?... The government’s current message is that ‘this is not designed to get in the way of ESG factors, excepting the very narrow area of UK foreign or defence policy’. But this is absolutely not a very narrow area.”
He adds:
“We could end up in a scenario with never ending arguments involving ESG factors versus foreign and defence policy.”
Surely that cannot be the intention of this Government.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I think I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said this afternoon. She will remember, as I do, how many of us on the Opposition Benches, and indeed in all of the House, spent years of our lives campaigning against the apartheid regime. That was a very strong policy within local authorities and it had real impact at the time, so much so that when Nelson Mandela came to this country to thank people, he included them in those thanks. Does she believe that, had this legislation been enacted at the time, it would have prevented those authorities from taking the action they did to oppose apartheid?
Lisa Nandy
South Africa is obviously a different case, but the point my hon. Friend makes remains and is well founded, because this Bill concentrates the decision making and judgment of hundreds of public bodies in the hands of just one person.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The hon. Lady talked about pensions, and there is an additional point. Whatever people may think of BDS or of an investment strategy that is ethical or otherwise, the money that sits in the local government pension scheme—and I am a member of the local government pension scheme—is the members’ money, my money. It is not the Government’s money to direct in one way or another; it belongs to the pension holders, and it is surely for them and those to whom they delegate its management to decide how it should be deployed. As she rightly says, if the Government are getting into the business of managing my pension money and I lose money because of decisions made by the Government, presumably I should be compensated.
Lisa Nandy
This is precisely the question that the Government have yet to answer, but we hope that will be forthcoming during this debate. I would add to what the right hon. Gentleman said that the local government pension service is already under a fiduciary duty to take prudent investment decisions based on an assessment of the financial consequence of a number of matters, including environmental and social governance, and when it divests on the basis of non-financial factors, it should follow the Law Commission direction that any financial impact should not be significant and that the decision would likely be supported by scheme members. I am not sure what happens when a local government pension fund is taking decisions that would not be supported by scheme members. We are talking about the pensions of 6 million people in this country, and I think these are important questions that the Government must answer.
I want to turn to one of our chief concerns about this Bill, which is the concentration of the decision making and judgment of hundreds of public bodies in the hands of just one person and the implications of that for some of the most persecuted people in the world. There will be significant effects on the Uyghur in Xinjiang, who are suffering such serious crimes against humanity that the Biden Administration have recognised it as genocide. The Secretary of State will have read the impassioned letter from those groups in The Times about the effects of this Bill. Surely we cannot abandon them to their fate. For the Rohingya in Myanmar, for the Tamils in Sri Lanka and for countless others, the concern is that this bad law prevents not just economic action to uphold human rights everywhere, but solidarity with some of the most persecuted people in the world.
As was said earlier, the Bill goes further and clause 7 grants to the Secretary of State or other relevant body the power to issue notices requiring all information to be handed over, if they suspect that a prohibited statement expressing a moral or political view about foreign conduct is in the process of or about to be made, including information in subsection (8) that would normally be protected by legal privilege. Let me clear about the effect of that: this hands over to the Office for Students, the Secretary of State, and the Treasury, greater powers than those available to the security services. I know there are Members on both sides of the House who are deeply troubled by that, and those who are not should consider for a moment how they might feel about this Bill if their party was not in power.
We should not be here. We have long fought for legislation to tackle what is a real problem, and we are determined to give the Government the opportunity to do the right thing. That is why today we are proposing an alternative that allows the Government and this House to keep our promise to tackle a long-standing issue of deep concern to the Jewish community, but avoids tearing up our commitment to human rights, local democracy and free speech, in a Bill that does not even appear to tackle the very problem it seeks to solve.
Richard Graham
The hon. Lady has made a number of powerful points. She will have heard me question the Secretary of State about the fact that the Bill is not country agnostic; it is directed primarily at one country and one issue, which is BDS. The question for her is, in a way, the opposite of that, which is that this problem has come to be because of decisions made by Leicester City Council and Lancaster City Council, which are Labour-run councils acting arguably in cahoots with BDS. What does she think the Labour party can do to take away the perceived requirement to have a Bill that seems, at the moment, largely to argue against BDS’s actions against Israel?
Lisa Nandy
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman had to say and I support it, but he should please not try to tarnish Labour Members with a record on antisemitism. There are those of us who stood up not just to those who are supposed to be our opponents, but to those who are supposed to be our friends as well. And we will always do that. I give my word, and I give our word on behalf of the Labour party.
As I am about to outline, we have provided the Government with an alternative. Earlier this year we sought to amend the Procurement Bill to ensure that no single country, especially in the cases that we have been describing and the world’s only Jewish state, can be singled out for different standards from others, and in doing so whip up hate and hostility against the Jewish community. It is a real problem. We provided the Government with a solution. They refused it, but we remain convinced that co-operation and consensus is the right approach to tackle what we accept is a very real problem.
Today, the Secretary of State will hear this refrain again and again from Members on his own Back Benches, and across the House: two important principles—the need to tackle racism and antisemitism, which are a scourge on our society, and the need to stand up for human rights, freedom of expression, democracy and our long-standing position on Israel and Palestine, and act in accordance with international law—and those things should never be seen as mutually exclusive or allowed to be pitted against one another.
We have a number of serious suggestions about the way that this problem can be tackled. We have outlined an alternative approach. We have provided the Secretary of State with a solution, and we urge him to take it. Otherwise, he should know that Labour Members will be compelled to vote against the Bill on Third Reading, as I suspect will significant numbers of his own colleagues. It is an outcome we should all strive to avoid. If a pledge to tackle division, around which there is broad consensus, was derailed by a combative approach and a Government who refuse to listen to the wide range of voices that have expressed their concerns, that would be a crying shame. With good will and good faith on the part of the Government, we can proceed together. We have proposed how. The ball is now in the court of the right hon. Gentleman.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
This evening’s debate should focus on the specifics of the Bill in front of us. The right of Israel to exist and defend itself is not up for debate. The right of Palestine to exist and defend itself is also not up for debate. The UK supports a two-state solution, and I believe that everyone in the Chamber would also be of that mind. I wish to draw the attention of hon. Members to the implications of the current drafting of the Bill. It has implications on our historic commitments and responsibilities and ability to play the role of honest arbiter within the region, and risks undermining our commitments as a United Nations Security Council member.
My concerns about the Bill fall within four areas: first, foreign policy implications; secondly, exceptionalism in legislation; thirdly, protection of freedom of speech; and finally, the legality of what we are being asked to support. Let me begin with the implications of the Bill on foreign policy and international obligations. My first concern, as was raised in earlier interventions, is the conflation of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Conflating East Jerusalem, the west bank and the Golan Heights breaks with our position, because the UK recognises the Golan Heights as annexed and the west bank and East Jerusalem as Occupied Palestinian Territories. That is a departure from our foreign policy.
Not only does the Bill break with our foreign policy, but clause 3(7) puts the UK in breach of our commitments under UN Security Council resolution 2334 (2016). That is not just an international commitment; it is one that we drafted back in 2016. It states that in their “relevant dealings”, states must distinguish
“between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.”
The Bill does not distinguish between our treatment of Israel and the OPTs.
Why does breaching UNSCR 2334 matter? Because we rely on the rules based system to protect ourselves and to protect our allies. How many of us have talked about the rule of law in this Chamber, when it comes to Ukraine and Russia, Serbia, the Balkans, and so many other parts of this world? The impact of the Bill would be significant. It will undermine our position as a respectable and reliable multilateral partner, committed to upholding UN Security Council resolutions as we should as a permanent member. It risks our losing the support of Arab states on shared issues, and their vote at the UN. We all know that western states are spending a significant amount of time trying to shore up the support of so-called non-aligned countries. I have spent most of the last few days on the phone to Arab ambassadors—the same Arab ambassadors who recognise Israel and want to normalise relations with Israel. Finally, we risk giving China, Iran, Russia, Serbia and others an easy propaganda win, because they will use this against us when we talk about the annexation of territories around the world.
I am concerned that the UN Special Coordinator would have no choice but to explicitly name the UK in their next report on how member states are adhering to compliance with UNSCR 2334. I also worry that it sends the wrong message about the achievement of sovereignty through violence. It means that if Israel breaches international law in the occupied territories, public bodies cannot express their ethical objection to those crimes. I worry that the Bill will leave the international community questioning whether Israeli settlements in the OPTs and the Golan Heights are still regarded as illegal by the UK Government.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Lady has given a very good list of people that the Bill could undermine. Does she also recognise that it undermines many people in Israel who oppose the occupation in the occupied territories, and it would make their life harder when making the case in Israel in a democratic sense?
Alicia Kearns
I have received significant representations from human rights organisations within Israel, and also from within our Jewish communities in the UK, who feel that this is not only the worst possible timing for the Bill, but that they themselves do not support it.
If we are now to have questioned our position on the OPTs legally, how is the Bill compatible with that, and with the fact that the Conservative Government recognise that settlements built on occupied Palestinian land since 1967 are illegal? We must ensure that all legislation makes a clear distinction between Israel where we support no boycott, and the illegal settlements on occupied land where a boycott would be consistent with our position on UNSCR 2334. Why are we undermining our international position by breaching our position on a two-state solution, and changing the UK’s recognition of certain territories as occupied, when the Bill can achieve the same end simply by removing clause 3(7)? The House will hear that point reiterated throughout the evening by many of my colleagues.
I was also concerned that the Secretary of State appeared not to be aware of the concerns emanating from the Foreign Office and from diplomatic posts. I ask him to clarify that when winding up this evening. I think the wording was that “no such advice had been received”. Has the Foreign Office truly not given any advice that it had concerns that the Bill breached our UN Security Council resolutions?
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Does the UK presently have any policies against goods coming in from the settlements?
Alicia Kearns
I am not aware whether we do, but that would be legitimate within the current UN Security Council restrictions so I would not necessarily oppose it. What I am saying is that we would not necessarily support Israel being boycotted, but we would support a boycott of products from the occupied territories, because we consider them to be illegal or annexed.
Dr Whitford
Is it not an issue to use the term “boycotting” with regard to the settlements? They are illegal under international law, so no public body should be investing in, or making profit from, them.
Alicia Kearns
Inherently, the hon. Lady makes a valid point, although it is potentially a different discussion. There is a fundamental question around whether we should be boycotting or bringing in goods. As the House knows, I have been vocal in ensuring that goods coming from genocide are not imported from across China. We must have a standard response across all countries.
To sum up, my concern is that legislation by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities must not depart from our foreign policy, let alone undermine it or leave us ostracised internationally. My second concern is the legislative implications from the exceptionalism proposed in the Bill. Since my election, the Government have been at great pains to make the point to me that all legislation should be agnostic. I must admit that I railed against that when first elected, and the House may have seen me table amendments with the words “China” and “Xinjiang” on repeat—ad nauseam, some might say. However, the Government are correct, and I have come to appreciate and recognise that position.
To demonstrate that point, let me draw on the Procurement Bill, which this Bill interacts with on exceptions, pension schemes and the UK security services. All the amendments that I tabled to the Procurement Bill—I am grateful to the Government for having accepted them—were country-agnostic, because the Government made the point that that is how we legislate, except for such things as trade Bills. We should be agnostic in all we do, but worse than being non-agnostic, the Bill gives exceptional impunity to Israel. We should not give that to any country, and I would be standing here making the same request were any country named.
To act in this way now sends a clear message to all Members of Parliament: “From now on, it is game on. If you want to put China, Xinjiang or any other country into primary legislation, crack on.” The Chief Whip will not be able to tell Members they cannot do it anymore, and Government Ministers will not be able to argue against it any more, because we have done it and broken that practice in this Bill. The Government will regret making this precedent. The reality is that we can achieve the same outcome without putting geographic references into primary legislation.
On the implications for freedom of speech—I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) for having made me aware of how acute these are—the Bill has unjustifiable clauses. Clause 4(1) states that if a local council leader, university vice-chancellor or even the chief executive of a private company delivering public services speaks in a way that contravenes clause 1, they have broken the law. To make the implications clear, the Bill states that just someone expressing in print that they would like, as an elected official, to boycott products from Xinjiang, China or any illegal settlement but cannot, because the law does not allow them to do so, constitutes an offence punishable by an as yet unlimited fine from the Secretary of State. That is completely inappropriate.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Lady is making a wonderful speech and I agree with everything she has said. On that last point, does she agree that the Bill is likely to disproportionately interfere with freedom of expression and the conscience of individuals, in such a way that does not sit with our obligations under articles 9 and 10 of the ECHR?
Alicia Kearns
I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Lady, because this legislation does breach article 10 rights to freedom of speech, as it fails to distinguish between a person and an authority, so individuals risk being liable. If the legislation made clear that it is about public authorities, we would not have those concerns, but the lack of that clarity makes individuals liable to being fined, and therefore it breaches article 10 of the ECHR. Given that the Government have just rightly passed the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which I fundamentally and entirely support, to now stop elected individuals from expressing moral disapproval or even to consider or vocalise ethical investment decisions is wrong.
My final concern is the legality of what we are being asked to support. I question whether this Bill will be legally sound once tested, and I have every reason to think it will not be, because it has previously failed in the High Court. When the measure fails again in the High Court, we will then see a judgment on the UK’s treatment of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which I fear I would not be proud to stand behind. Similar legislation has failed, and legal concerns rest around, for example, the terms “political or moral disapproval”, which are not defined in the Bill and breach our commitment to making human rights fundamental in our decision making. Our obligations under the UN guiding principles on business and human rights essentially mean that this legislation would see the private sector having greater adherence to our human rights than the public sector. I encourage the Secretary of State to consider potential conflict between the UK Government and the UN stating that settlements are illegal while then penalising local councils in the UK for taking ethical procurement decisions to address that illegality.
There is significant unhappiness among colleagues in the House and in our party. To enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to still deliver on our manifesto commitment, I urge him to please remove clause 3(7), which is unnecessary to delivering on our commitment. We can still do this, with just a small compromise from those on the Front Bench. The Government can still introduce Israel’s exception through secondary legislation, which would mean that we would treat Israel as equal to every other state. It would prevent us from breaching our UN Security Council resolutions and from being dragged through the courts. It would maintain our country-agnostic legislative approach, and it would prevent us from undermining our standing internationally.
While we are on the subject, I have never felt that we are so close to conflict, particularly following this morning’s news. There is the chance that we might be seeing a third intifada and the Gaza crisis of 2023, and we need to demonstrate meaningful resolve from King Charles Street in ending the conflict and de-escalating. I therefore urge the Prime Minister to appoint a middle east peace envoy, because we do not have any envoy for the middle east, let alone one focused exclusively on the middle east peace process. We should be worried, because what happens in Palestine and Israel impacts around the world. I stress that this low-commitment ask would allow us to live up to our responsibilities and demonstrate meaningful resolve. With that, I join with other respected friends of Israel in urging the Government to think again.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). I also thank the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for suggesting that tone in this debate is important. I see that the Secretary of State is leaving at this moment in time, but I do not think anybody will miss the irony of his projecting himself as the sole moral arbiter for the whole United Kingdom. Even worse, he seeks to quell the just protests of honourable organisations and individuals who are trying to bring about decent change internationally.
In Scotland, we have a proud history of promoting social justice, human rights and respect for international law on the world stage. As the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) alluded to in his intervention, Scotland can provide a very good example. In 1981, the then Glasgow District Council decided to award Nelson Mandela the freedom of the city—the first city in the world to do so. Five years later, St George’s Place in Glasgow city centre was renamed Nelson Mandela Place. Why was that? It was because the South African consulate was in St George’s Place, and the council wanted to make sure that everybody knew who Nelson Mandela was by making sure his name was on the address of the South African consulate. When Nelson Mandela addressed Glasgow City Chambers in 1993, he said:
“While we were physically denied our freedom in the country of our birth, a city, 6,000 miles away, and as renowned as Glasgow, refused to accept the legitimacy of the apartheid system, and declared us to be free.”
Had this proposed legislation been in place during the 1980s, Glasgow would have likely been legally debarred from taking the actions that it did, or even from suggesting that it might take those actions, because the then Conservative Government did not support sanctions for South Africa. I remember as a young lad seeing country after country boycotting the Commonwealth games in Edinburgh in 1986 as a result of the then UK Government’s actions.
SNP Members will be supporting Labour’s reasoned amendment. However, it is missing one key part: the attacks on the devolved Administrations. Perversely, the democratically elected Parliament and Government of Scotland will be required under the Bill to give legislative assent to its enactment. We will be asked to provide the gag that silences our freedom of expression and that of the people we represent.
As a good global citizen, Scotland is committed to the highest ethical and moral standards in human rights, climate justice, workers’ rights and economic development. The Scottish Government will always fulfil their obligations under international law and agreements. The people of Scotland rightly expect that actions in Scotland should be taken with full consideration of moral and ethical duties to communities around the world, and we will not idly watch that good work being constrained.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s points. The Welsh Labour Government have policies on such matters as modern slavery and human rights. Public sector investment and procurement are devolved, yet the Bill’s impact assessment does not consider any specific Welch approaches. Does he agree that the Government should do that before taking any further steps?
Chris Stephens
Indeed. There was probably no discussion with the devolved Administrations on the Bill and the impact that it will have on the devolved institutions, so I agree with my hon. Friend. The UK Government claim that the Scottish Government pursue actions that undermine UK foreign policy, but that is simply not the case—it is not true. For many years, the Scottish Government have conducted international engagement which benefits the people of Scotland and aligns with present constitutional arrangements. Scottish Government Ministers are simply embodying the values-based principles of the Scottish electorate, as the Welsh would do with the Welsh electorate.
I listened to the Secretary of State arguing for the Bill, which gave an impression of what the death rattle of a dying Government sounds like. The Bill represents a desperate attempt by the UK Government to salvage something from the wreckage they have created across the fields of international trade, diplomatic relations and human rights. Let us look at those fields in turn.
Dr Whitford
Does not the gagging clause in the Bill, which will stifle debate and discussion about policy, fit with what we have seen in the last year or so with the Public Order Act 2023: the seizing by the Executive of almost every power to hold the Government to account, whether from the judiciary, voters, protesters or even MPs, through post-Brexit legislation?
Chris Stephens
Let me add trade unions and workers who decide to take strike action. Yes, we know who the Government’s enemies are because they have been legislating against them in the last year since they crashed the economy.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
In Nottingham, we have significant numbers of people, including Hongkongers and those from other parts of the world, who have fled from many countries perpetrating human rights abuses. They rightly do not want their councils or universities to be complicit in human rights abuses that their family and friends continue to experience. Does the hon. Member agree that public bodies must have the right to take a principled stance against, for example, the persecution of the people of Hong Kong, the Uyghurs in Xinjiang or political dissidents across China?
Chris Stephens
I do agree. I am going to quote an exchange between the hon. Lady and a Minister later in my remarks, so she may want to intervene again. I have Uyghur Muslims as constituents. I know how serious the issues are. I have Kurdish constituents who are very concerned about the oppression of Kurdish people in Turkey and Syria, for example. I will always stand beside those people, but the Bill will prevent public bodies and institutions from taking such steps. That is a real concern.
The Government are leaving themselves open to a new slogan: never mind the probity, feel the width. Their ability to grow trade is now severely constrained, so they seem to be selling off their own principles to the highest bidder. Previous attempts to work with others in making the world a decent place are now to be put aside. Rogue nations are to be tolerated for the sake of business and their transgressions ignored. The Bill—the dog’s breakfast that it is—leaves them open to that charge.
Amnesty International UK is right to say that the Bill will
“make it almost impossible for public bodies to use their procurement and investment policies to incentivise ethical business conduct that is human rights compliant.”
However, perhaps the objective is not surprising. From the UK being an original drafter of the European convention on human rights, I note that some on the Government Benches now wish the UK to leave that. We would have hoped that the Conservative Government might have learned from their disastrous policy of giving succour to the apartheid regime in South Africa. When the world railed against that regime, the then Conservative Government turned a blind eye, even though we already knew the consequences of appeasement from earlier experiences.
We have learned in the last century what happens when Governments do not have a conscience and turn a blind eye to wrongdoing. We have learned that responsibility lies not just at a national level but at a local level—and, yes, even at the level of the individual. Now we are informed that giving expression to that conscience locally will be penalised under the law. It would appear that the only good conscience is a Tory conscience as expressed by a Government Minister at Westminster.
I ask myself: why are the Government pursuing this policy? Does every Government Member want to stifle local democracy? Every society has its share of people who are mainly self-interested, with little concern for those outside their own circle. It would be good to think that that proportion of society has shrunk as we have become more aware of world affairs. But it still seems to be far too substantial, suggesting to niche voters that principles are costly to us and we cannot now afford them. That is a dangerous game. It is much easier to break down society than to build it up; to make people isolationist rather than internationalist. Patching that fragmented society together again would be a monumental task. But there is good news: there are some parts of the United Kingdom where that dystopian dream is not being pursued—quite the opposite, in fact.
We have had helpful support in our position regarding Israel, for example. On Thursday, at that very Dispatch Box, the International Trade Minister told the House that the UK has a clear position on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories:
“they are illegal under international law, present an obstacle to peace and…a two-state solution.”—[Official Report, 29 June 2023; Vol. 735, c. 408.]
As set out in Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office guidance on overseas business risks, there are clear risks to UK businesses related to economic and financial activities in the settlements and we do not encourage or offer support to such activity. So the Government’s position seems to be, “Don’t do it. We don’t support it, but we’re not going to allow people to boycott it.” That is a very confusing position for the Government to find themselves in. The Secretary of State suggested that the Bill does not stop boycotts of occupied territories, but actually we need just to read the Bill to see that that is exactly what it proposes.
Chris Stephens
I will in a second.
I want to make it clear that the Scottish Government and the SNP unequivocally condemn and distance themselves from members or affiliates in the BDS movement who advocate a complete boycott of Israel and Israeli people and who suggest that the state of Israel does not even have the right to exist. The Scottish Government are also committed to tackling all incidents of hate crime, working in partnership with a range of organisations, including Police Scotland. It would be a cruel distraction for the Government to equate sympathy and support for oppressed people with antisemitism. The Bill leads to the accusation that the Government think there are good and bad occupations. As others have said, when I have Uyghur Muslim constituents with children in camps, I cannot support and vote for a Bill that would stop organisations from campaigning against or boycotting Chinese goods on the basis of the treatment of Uyghur Muslims. With Kurdish constituents, I cannot support a Bill that would stop me, or organisations or public bodies, from boycotting goods from Turkey or Syria on the basis of the oppression of Kurdish people. I cannot support a Bill that ignores environmental concerns. Friends of the Earth said that the Bill will
“prevent public bodies from divesting from fossil fuel, as well as diverting their money away from inadvertently funding human rights abuses abroad”.
That is what the Bill does. It will make it illegal for public bodies and local authorities to divest from or boycott fossil fuel companies and those with poor track records on protecting environmental standards.
The Scottish National party—and I believe, the Scottish people—will not participate in this diminution of freedom of speech and disregard for the wellbeing of our friends throughout the world. Earlier, I referred to the Bill as the death rattle of a dying Government. Ministers really should withdraw the Bill; it is a complete and utter dog’s breakfast. If they do not, I support the Opposition’s reasoned amendment and the Bill does not deserve to pass Second Reading.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
A large number of right hon. and hon. are trying to catch my eye. If we are to get everyone in, my guidance is that speeches should be limited to about six minutes.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I agree with much of the sentiment of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), for whom I have a great deal of regard, as she knows. However, fine words butter no parsnips. It is easy to identify the source of the problem, but it is a little more difficult to legislate in such a complex area.
I would respond to some of the things that the hon. Lady said on two fronts. First, it is okay for people to make reference to the political views and other writings of a KC who is advising her and her right hon. and hon. Friends. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to bring to the House’s attention. King’s counsels are not Gods and they are not beyond any criticism. Secondly, she made the point, in many ways, for why we require the Bill—specifically, clause 3(7). She highlighted her own work—for which I applaud her—during a very difficult time in her party’s history. She stood up and received all sorts of appalling abuse because of the position she was prepared to take on what was going on in her party. I am grateful for and impressed by her bravery in doing that. It was an incredible thing for Opposition Members to do at that time. Precisely because we ended up in the position we did, where people with sympathies for the BDS campaign came very close to power in this country, we require clause 3(7) and the specification of Israel.
BDS is an antisemitic, racist campaign—there is no doubt about that. It singles out the state of Israel for special treatment. There is something peculiarly sinister about those who obsess about Israel while being blind to the behaviour of despots and dictators across the world. I hope that is not the case for most Members in the House, but it is for some who oppose this view. That is not my view, but that of the German Parliament, the Bundestag, which passed a motion a few years ago that stated that the actions of the BDS were reminiscent of the terrifying Nazi campaign against Jewish people under Adolf Hitler. It went on to say:
“The ‘don’t buy’ stickers of the BDS movement on Israeli products”
could be associated with
“the Nazi call ‘don’t buy from Jews’ and other corresponding graffiti…on shop windows”.
I would hope that none in the Chamber would support those sorts of actions or behaviours. It is a little off subject, but today we learned that the last French D-day fighter of Nazism Léon Gautier has passed away. It would be nice for us to remember his name today.
Sadly, that behaviour rooted in the Nazi period has not passed. We have seen so many examples of it, as Members have reminded us this afternoon. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) for reminding me of some experiences of his constituents in recent years. I will not repeat them due to time constraints, but they include the removal of kosher products because of the pernicious, racist BDS movement and the fact that film festivals in this country have been cancelled because they dared to take a small amount of sponsorship from the Israeli embassy.
The BDS campaign has consequences. It is no wonder a Jewish driver was attacked in Golders Green outside Kosher Kingdom for daring to have an Israeli flag on his vehicle. It is no wonder we end up with the appalling antisemitic incidents and attacks on British campuses. British Jews become the targets and victims of the campaign—none of us should forget that. We cannot divorce BDS from its impacts on the Jewish citizens of our country.
We have seen record numbers of antisemitic incidents in recent years—it is important to remind the House of those. Last year, 1,652 antisemitic incidents were recorded by the Community Security Trust. Worryingly, the proportion of victims who were minors has increased. Perhaps even worse, the proportion of minors perpetrating those attacks has also increased; in 2022, 20% were recorded as minors—a number that has doubled in recent years. We must do everything we can to abate the trend among younger people, some of which is motivated by the BDS campaign. Every time there is a flare-up in the middle east conflict, British Jews are on the receiving end. The current issues, which the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) referenced, of rising tensions in the regions are the biggest argument for the legislation in the form in which it has been produced.
Any rise in tensions in the middle east will result in an uptick in BDS activities. I was interested in what the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), said on that. He was careful to say, “Of course, we disassociate ourselves from people in the BDS movement who delegitimise the state of Israel through boycotts.” However, he did not tell us his view of those people when they argue for boycotts in the Occupied Palestinian Territories or in the settlements. The problem is that they are not different people, but the same. He cannot separate them from the people seeking to delegitimise Israel, and say, “Those people are wrong, and racist and antisemitic”, as many in the BDS movement are, and then infer, as I think he was doing, that their activities and what they demand are okay when they relate to other parts. They are the same people who hold the same pernicious, racist views.
Many people with issues about the Bill have legitimate concerns—there is no doubt about that. The Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box that he was prepared to work in Committee to see how we can improve the Bill if required. That was a sensible thing to say. However, I am afraid that for some who oppose the Bill, it is always about Israel. Their beef is always the state of Israel. I have heard some bizarre arguments against the Bill, one of which is that it will increase antisemitism. That is a strange argument, to put it mildly. Just because some people do not like the legislation, saying that it might result in an increase in antisemitism and “Oh, in which case, let’s not bother with it” rather proves the point of the Bill.
Richard Graham
It is not really about liking each other, important though that is. It is about what the Jewish Chronicle itself has said:
“Boycotting Israel is wrong but this anti BDS bill is not the answer…This is a bad bill…and bad especially for British Jews”.
Is my hon. Friend aware of that, and does he realise that many Jews are not in favour of this way of trying to protect themselves from antisemitism?
Andrew Percy
The editor-at-large of the Jewish Chronicle, in an excellent piece today, wrote:
“There is no room for shades of grey here. You either think it’s fine to boycott Jews—in which case you will oppose the Bill—or you don’t, in which case you will support it.”
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which rather helpfully takes me on to my point about the view of the Jewish community: the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council are united in believing that the Bill is invaluable in the battle against antisemitism.
I was responding to some of the opposition to the Bill. One issue is that of settlements. The Bill will have no impact on the UK’s policy on settlements, which is that they are illegal under international law. That does not change with the Bill. The country does not, at the moment, have a boycott policy against settlement products or products coming from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, precisely because it is so complex in terms of who actually works there and who is damaged economically. The Bill makes no difference to that and neither does it prevent any criticism of Israel. That can continue and we have heard that today. I end where I started: this legislation is necessary to deal with a pernicious and peculiarly sinister antisemitic campaign group.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I remind colleagues that I said six minutes, as opposed to 10. If colleagues could stick to that, that would be helpful.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I am afraid I completely disagree with the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). The Bill reflects what is wrong in politics today.
The Government have put forward legislation that is flawed, poorly drafted, and will have damaging consequences both here and abroad. They have not done it to support Israel, to demonstrate solidarity with the Jewish community, or to show they really care about undermining the BDS movement. They simply want to set a political trap for Labour. By putting their crude party political interests above the public interest, they confirm what voters think about us: that politicians waste time on childish political games rather than trying to make the world a better place. It is that behaviour that leads to a loss of trust. The Bill is not a considered attempt to bring about peace, provide better security for Israel or respond to the threats posed by BDS. It is about using Jews as a pawn in the Government’s political game. To debate the Bill on the day that violence has flared up again in the west bank is a solemn reminder of why this really matters. I say to the Government: our voters have had enough of that sort of politics, and so have I.
Like many who oppose this legislation, I am a proud Zionist. I oppose the divisive and at times antisemitic BDS campaigns. I will always fight antisemitism, whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head. Action is needed, but the Bill will do more harm than good. So what is wrong with it? First, it singles out Israel. Many supporters of Israel rightly feel that hostile campaigners single out the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that the same level of attack is not meted out to Myanmar, for example, or to China for its treatment of the Uyghurs. The Bill plays into the hands of antisemites by doing the one thing we should never, ever do: single out Israel as the one place that can never be boycotted. No other country is named. If the Bill is passed, I fear—and know from my own post box—that it will have the unintended consequence of increasing anti-Jew hatred in Britain. We have seen the letter to the Prime Minister from Uyghur exiles opposing the Bill, because it will affect them and make it impossible to boycott goods from China. What thought have the Government given to ethical concerns that public bodies may have about, for instance, the Ugandan Government and their treatment of the LGBT community? By singling out Israel, the Bill pits the mainstream Jewish community against every other valiant human rights campaign, and does so in a way and at a time that will make peace in the region more difficult.
I returned recently from Israel, where I saw the chaos being wrought by the extreme actions of the present Government. From undermining democracy with attacks on judicial independence to the untrammelled expansion of settlements in the occupied territories, Israel has never been more divided and Israeli politics has never felt more broken. The best thing Britain can do is to put diplomatic pressure on the Israeli Government to abandon the judicial reforms and de-escalate the violence. The Bill will deliver the complete opposite. It will be heralded by the Netanyahu Government as a ringing endorsement of their actions. It will send the wrong message at the wrong time.
Like others, I reject the approach of BDS to Israel. Its actions encourage hatred between communities and too often its supporters are antisemitic in what they say. Wrongdoing is never defeated by stifling free speech and open debate, and that is what the Bill does. It prohibits elected public officers from even making statements suggesting that they support boycotts in any state. Clause 4 is a gagging clause, and arguments are never won by suppressing democratic debate. I learnt that fighting the British National party in the 2010 general election. I did not beat Nick Griffin by refusing to engage with him. It was by engaging publicly, by his appearance on “Question Time”, and by allowing him free speech that we exposed what a vile, divisive, racist party he led. Unmasking him through debate helped us to smash him at the ballot box. The Government have just legislated to enshrine free speech in our universities, but are now cancelling the freedom of elected officials in this grubby little Bill. Were they really committed to tackling the BDS problem, they would support our reasoned amendment which would ensure that decisions public authorities took on procurement and investment would be consistently applied to all countries. Israel would not be singled out.
I spent years as a councillor. The idea that local politicians should not express views on either national or international issues is deeply arrogant. We stand for public office because of our political principles, and that is true whether one is a back-bench councillor or a Cabinet Minister. The idea that the two elected positions differ in their democratic status is plain wrong. It is a typical, hugely centralising move by the Government that puts yet another nail in the coffin of devolution. On those grounds alone, the Bill should be opposed. I was in local government when anti-apartheid was a strong movement. Our council joined many others to boycott South Africa. Margaret Thatcher opposed those boycotts in the name of economic liberalism and introduced legislation in 1988 similar to that proposed today. As we now know, that legislation proved ineffective, but the Government seem incapable of learning the lessons of history.
I urge Members to support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). It provides a fair and pragmatic response to the potential damage that BDS could bring to Israel. The Minister may claim to be promoting the Bill in the name of our community, but it fails to protect or advance the interests of the Jewish community: it promotes community discord rather than encouraging community cohesion; it encourages conflict rather than inspiring peace; it cancels free speech rather than promoting democratic debate; it is another centralising move at the expense of localism; and it provides support for the extremist actions of the present Israeli Government, rather than using our influence to express our concerns and calm things down in the middle east. It is a bad, bad Bill. As one of the few Jews on the Opposition Benches, as a committed Zionist and as someone who stands with my community in desperately wanting a peace in the region that brings security to Israel, I ask the Government: please think again.
Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I thank the Government for bringing forward this important Bill. In my former role as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I took the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022 through the House, and that marked the first legislative step against BDS. It was a landmark moment, legally enforcing the principle that BDS has no place in the investment decisions of local authorities. I strongly welcome our fulfilling our manifesto commitment to extend that principle.
Put simply, local authorities have no business running a foreign policy parallel to that of His Majesty’s Government. That remit is absolutely within our gift, not theirs. Their role is to deliver local services for the communities they represent, to innovate and to deliver best value. I say that as someone who is a convinced believer in devolution. I believe that we should empower mayors to lead areas of the country in a way that will unlock their economic potential, but I do not want them opining on the rights and wrongs of the behaviour of different countries. It is emphatically unhelpful for local authorities to hinder our country’s export trade, damage our foreign relations and act in a way that is to the detriment of our international or economic security.
Much of the specific concern in this debate is about Israel, and that is because it is always about Israel. This is the point that we cannot elide and that sits at the heart of the reason why Israel needs to be mentioned on the face of the Bill. There are Members arguing against Israel being named specifically in this Bill for whom I have great respect and whom I count as personal friends. But we cannot be oblivious to why Israel needs this protection. The overwhelming focus of the BDS movement is, of course, on this one small state. The BDS movement is not arguing against the horrors perpetrated in Russia, China, Iran or any number of other countries—we could list for hours those countries that perpetrate grotesque wrongs against their people—and I do not see local authorities acting against those countries, either. I see them acting consistently against our ally Israel. There can be no doubt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said, that the motivation of some in the BDS movement is dark, sinister and unashamedly linked to the antisemitism that we have seen in our society over recent years, perhaps particularly and most shamefully in our universities. It is disgusting and it is hard not to see aspects of it in the attempt to enforce some of these boycotts and divestments. They simply have no place in modern Britain. It is right that we should act against this and remind local government of its proper responsibilities, which are large and growing under this Government. I certainly believe that that should be its focus.
I come to this debate without any significant minority community in my constituency. I simply see a wrong that we should right, an offence that we should not give, and money, energy and time that our local authorities should be spending to better effect on their significant responsibilities. Foreign affairs should be left to this place, not to town halls.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
It is an honour to rise to oppose this Bill in the strongest possible terms. I was very disappointed in how the Bill was presented by the Secretary of State, who left his place without even listening to other Front-Bench speeches. I was incredibly encouraged, however, by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who gave a reasoned and constructive speech, and, of course, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge). She comes to these issues from a different place from me, but I agreed with every word she said.
I want to cover three main areas: the unprecedented powers that the Bill gives the Secretary of State and, by implication, the removal of balanced decision making from those in local government who have been elected to serve their local communities; the incompatibility of the Bill with international law and the conflation of the UK’s long-standing cross-party position in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights with the state of Israel; and the exposure of the UK Government to extended and repeated legal challenge, which would take away money that, as the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Sir Simon Clarke) said, needs to be spent in our local communities.
Let me go through those three points. The Government have often stated their commitment to devolution, and they have delivered it in many areas, allowing as much decision making as possible to take place near the people whom politicians are elected to serve. This Bill flies in the face of that claim. It will act as a gagging order on local authorities in a way that no other piece of legislation does. Many in local government have raised huge concerns about the impact of the Bill, including the Local Government Chronicle, the Local Government Association and the TUC. Particular concerns have been raised about the Bill’s impact on the 6 million local government pensioners. Is that really the Government’s intention? The Bill will ban public bodies—mainly local authorities but also universities and others—from working within current procurement rules and making their own decisions appropriate to their own areas. If we look to history to inform the future, we will see that the most effective example in my lifetime was the successful campaign against the apartheid regime in South Africa. That undoubtedly helped bring down that regime and led to democracy in South Africa, which is something that the international community and the UK should be proud of. Are we really suggesting that we should not be allowed to take such a position again?
I turn to the Bill’s incompatibility with international law and the UK’s long-standing cross-party position in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights, which are being conflated with the state of Israel. Why does the Bill highlight those three areas? On the face of it, it looks as though the Secretary of State wishes to penalise councils that have acted not against the state of Israel but against illegal settlements built on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, in flagrant defiance of successive UN Security Council resolutions, which the UK helped draft and voted in favour of. It seems to me that the UK Government are throwing all sense to the wind. We all wish to see this part of the world living in peace. The violence that has erupted today is an example of how crucial it is to bring peace to this area. The failure to distinguish between the sovereign territory of Israel and the territories occupied in 1967, as outlined in UN Security Council resolution 2334, is an alarming deviation from the long-standing UK policy. I ask the Secretary of State to look again and remove the most contentions parts of the Bill. Those who push this Bill make a very dangerous conflation between legitimate criticism of illegal Israeli actions and the horror of antisemitism, which we all abhor.
Finally, and briefly—I am going to stick to the time limit—this Bill, if it goes through in its current state, will result in an appalling waste of money. It will undoubtedly lead to not one, not two but numerous legal challenges, with each costing the Government, and therefore the British taxpayer, an enormous amount of money. In the current economic climate, throwing things to the wind and rushing headlong into such a Bill, which does not solve the problem that it sets out to solve, is absolutely irresponsible in the first degree. I ask the Government to either look again and remove the contentious clauses, or start again and bring to the House a Bill that actually does what it sets out to do and that sorts out the problem and does not cause utter chaos in this area of policy making.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I rise with a heavy heart to agree with many comments from across the House on the nature of this defective Bill. I agree with Richard Hermer KC, who in a very compelling interview published in today’s Jewish News talks about the problems that this Bill presents not just for the UK as a whole but for British Jewry in general.
Taking things in order, my primary concern is the safety of that community. As somebody who has worked very closely with the Jewish community, particularly in the capital over the years, and who has a strong affection for the Haredi community in north London, whom I know well both in policing and crime terms and having dealt with their housing issues as Housing Minister, I am afraid that I agree with the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) that this Bill, should it go through in its current form, is likely to damage and worsen their safety rather than improve it. In that I am with Jonathan Freedland, who wrote in the Jewish Chronicle just last week:
“What is the favourite refrain of the antisemites? That Israel is the one country you’re not ‘allowed’ to criticise. This bill takes a canard and, in the case of boycotts, turns it into the law of the land.”
The inclusions of clause 3(7) and, indeed, parts of clause 4 send a chill through that sense of debate, and will feed some of the disgusting conspiracy theories about the status of Israel and the influence that that country has around the globe. I have to say that I fear for the safety of the Jewish community should the measures be passed in that form. There are those who would do its members harm—we all know that in this House, and I have seen it for myself—and we cannot give them succour by falling into that trap.
My second concern is the practical impact of the Bill on many organisations across the country. As we heard from the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), this is a lawyers’ charter. There will be challenges to and fro, involving universities, pension funds and councils. Every decision that is taken will be scrutinised, and, moreover, councillors who have strong convictions in either direction will seek to find ways that are oblique to fulfil their own sense of moral or ethical obligation. There are groups out there who represent other countries, such as China and Myanmar, who will seek constantly to push councils in their direction, and not just in terms of Israel or Palestine. As a result, a huge amount of money and effort, and KCs at dawn, will be expended in pursuit of this legislation, and the impact will be enormous.
Thirdly, two key fundamental issues that are intrinsic to the way we live in the United Kingdom are challenged by the Bill. The first is, obviously, the free-speech challenge to which a number of Members have already referred, and which is represented in clause 4(2). It appears that I cannot even criticise this law, whether I am a council leader, a university vice-chancellor, or the chief executive of a company that is performing public services. I have never before seen legislation that outlaws disagreement with the law, and I think that breaching that right to free speech is a very problematic step.
The second of these issues was mentioned by the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). A law granting powers greater than those granted to the police to the investigatory or enforcement authorities identified in the Bill—the Secretary of State, the Office for Students, and one or two others—and allowing them, in particular, to breach legal privilege so that organisations can effectively go on a fishing trip looking at the legal advice that individuals have taken as they contemplate investment decisions is a Rubicon that I believe it would be wrong to cross.
The fourth area that concerns me relates to our tradition of pluralism in this country. There is no doubt that the Bill will send a chill through debate about a series of conflicts across the world. Whether we are talking about the Uyghur Muslims in China, the fate of Hong Kong Chinese or, indeed, those in Israel and Palestine, the fact is that everyone who is engaged in democracy, locally or on a devolved-nation basis, will have to be extremely careful about what they say. They will have to think twice and three times before they discuss these issues, lest that should prejudice, or be seen to prejudice, an investment or other decision that they may make in the future.
This is especially problematic in the context of academic freedom. As we heard from the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), we have just passed a law to guarantee academic freedom: freedom on campus. For that freedom now to be restricted. particularly for those in leadership positions in universities, strikes me as perverse. It should come as no surprise that the Union of Jewish Students is flatly opposed to the Bill, which is apposite given that its members are often the people most exposed to antisemitism in this form.
Finally, I want to raise the issue of timing. The right hon. Member for Barking said that this was the worst Bill at the worst time; I think that it is a defective Bill at a dreadful time. Given what is unfolding in Israel and Palestine today, given the toll of deaths that we have seen so far this year on all sides and given the international concern about the escalating violence in that part of the world, the introduction of this Bill at a time when many countries in that region are extremely concerned about what is going on will be seen by Arab countries in particular—although Members may not feel this themselves—as being partial, and as privileging one country over the others. I think that that will be detrimental not just to our interests in the United Kingdom, which are a primary concern. but to the interests of Israel, Palestine and the wider region.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow another excellent speech dissecting what is wrong with this very faulty Bill. What a contrast it was with the Secretary of State’s opening speech, which was effectively a display of polemical and performative rhetoric, containing assertions that the Bill itself contradicts—and I think that was a shame.
We have benefited from some extremely good analysis, although I have not been able to read all the briefings on the Bill that we have received, not just from eminent KCs—it was, again, a shame to witness one of them being speared by the Secretary of State—but from some leading expert organisations in the field: from the Council for Arab-British Understanding, from our former colleague Richard Burden, from the Balfour Project, from many Jewish organisations including Yachad and the Union of Jewish Students, from many trade unions, and from environmental groups who believe they will be caught up in this as well. I do not think that is what the Secretary of State intended; I think he intended the Bill to appeal to a populist narrative; but I do not think that has happened. Perhaps it is the revenge of the experts whom he trashed so publicly years ago.
While it is good that the Bill is not being given a platform and is not acting in the way in which the Government would like it to act—the way in which all the other legislation they are introducing seems to act at the moment—that does not mean that it is not a dangerous Bill. It does not mean that there is no harm in its provisions: harm to civil society, the rule of law and freedom of speech, principles that the Secretary of State would doubtless say that he wishes to uphold.
I am pleased to say that the nature and number of the risks in the Bill have been helpfully set out by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), in the reasoned amendment, and I commend her for an excellent piece of drafting that really takes the Bill to pieces. I hope it will be approved tonight, because it would deny the Bill a Second Reading. If it does not succeed, some Members may vote against Second Reading, while others may abstain. I will abstain at that point, because I am reassured by the shadow Secretary of State’s assurance that if the Bill is not substantially reformed in the way in which the amendment suggests, it will be rejected. I hope it will be rejected by Members in all parts of the House on Third Reading, before it leaves this place.
In the very limited time available to me, I want to headline my concerns. The first question I want to ask is this: will the Bill help or hinder groups that are under threat around the world, such as the Uyghurs, the Rohingya, minorities in countries, or people in occupied territories—in Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, Crimea, or the Palestinian territories? Will it help them in any way? The answer is, I think, a clear no. The Bill will run contrary to international law, it will run contrary to United Nations Security Council resolutions, particularly resolution 2334, and it will run contrary to the due diligence and fiduciary duties of local authorities and other public bodies and to legal principles. The FCDO guidance has already been quoted, and we have heard what Ministers have said as recently as last week in making distinctions between our policy towards Israel and our policy towards the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This point has been made a number of times already. By treating Israel exceptionally, the Bill does it no favours. By treating the Occupied Palestinian Territories alongside Israel, in a way that I have not seen before and that runs contrary to Government policy over many years under different Governments, the Bill makes a significant break and gives comfort to those who wish to see the Palestinian territories under permanent occupation, including many within the extremist Government in Israel.
Whatever the Secretary of State says, the Bill is a clear attack on free speech, and it is quite Kafkaesque in how it denies people the ability to speak out against what is happening. By inflicting not only strong powers of search and seizure but unlimited fines and penalties on those who speak out, this really is appalling legislation.
The Bill will have a chilling effect. We do not need to analyse the exact effect on every procurement and investment decision to see that pension funds are conservative bodies that will take decisions in ways that do not lay them open to this very woolly legislation. The consequence is that they will make bad decisions that go much further than the Secretary of State says he wishes to take the Bill.
Finally, I speak up, as many Members do, for the Palestinian people. How does this Bill benefit them? What effect will it have? On a day in which battlefield weapons are being used against civilian areas of the west bank for the first time in decades, we are talking about this scurrilous and performative Bill. The occupied territories have been occupied since 1967. Who will champion, as I wish this Government and this country would, their right to self-determination and their right to have their country recognised as a sovereign state, as we absolutely respect for the people of Israel? This Bill only hampers ambitions along those lines.
For those reasons, I ask Members on both sides of the House to vote for the reasoned amendment and not to allow the Bill to pass from this House in its current form.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
I also have grave reservations about this Bill. I want to be clear that it is not exclusively about Israel and Palestine; it is about the mandate and responsibility of elected figures in the UK. It is also about contradictions in policy.
On the one hand, we have legislated to protect freedom of speech in universities, but this Bill will prevent universities from discussing the impact of foreign Governments’ behaviour on their activities. The Bill is wide in scope but confused in its relationship to the Government’s aims as a whole. For instance, clause 1 is worded so that territories recognised as illegally occupied by international law are still within scope, wherever in the world they are. It seeks to prevent public bodies, such as local councils, from
“being influenced by political or moral disapproval of foreign states when taking certain economic decisions”.
In fact, those public bodies may well simply be having regard to international law or the previously expressed opinions of His Majesty’s Government.
Clause 4 addresses how a person intends to act. This means that elected officials with serious responsibilities cannot even have a public discussion about how they ae affected by the behaviour of overseas states. A prohibition on publishing means it is impossible to have a discussion at a hustings, in the media or in response to questions about human rights.
As we have heard, the Bill is likely to end up in court, either in the way that Prigozhin tried to muzzle journalists in the UK or, conversely, by someone asserting that their article 10 rights under the ECHR have been breached. The Bill curbs free speech and the free exercise of responsibility for elected bodies whose mandate we should respect.
The Bill’s wording implies that, among office holders, only Ministers can express an opinion on the countries that should be exempted under clause 3. This means that people in other tiers of government with responsibilities within the scope of clause 2 cannot. No matter how bad a country’s human rights record or respect for international law, discussion or action will be prevented.
That brings me on to Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the occupied Golan Heights. Why have they been singled out in clause 3(7)? Like my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), I do not believe this is helpful.
Jonathan Freedland wrote in The Jewish Chronicle of his concern that the Bill will make antisemitism worse, because banning the consideration of the economic consequences of things that are happening in the occupied territories, and issuing financial penalties where consideration is given, will just cause resentment. As he says, the best way to bring about change is to engage and debate.
I disagree with some BDS advocates, such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Israel has every right to exist, and its people have a right to live in peace. However, where Israel breaches international law, others must be permitted to point this out and hold it to account. This Bill would prevent that.
The Bill mentions the OPTs and the Golan Heights. Does this mean that boycotting the settlements will be against the law? These settlements are illegal under international law, and the UK Government’s own website states that there are
“clear risks related to economic…activities in the settlements, and we do not encourage or offer support to such activity… UK citizens and businesses should be aware of the potential reputational implications of getting involved in economic and financial activities in settlements, as well as possible abuses of the rights of individuals. Those contemplating any economic or financial involvement in settlements should seek appropriate legal advice.”
Israel benefits economically from its illegal occupation, and we should be permitted to comment and consider it in our policies.
The Foreign Secretary’s joint statement with Australia and Canada on 1 July shows the concern about the rapidly increasing number of new settlements on the west bank. How can public bodies show their concern, and why can they not show that concern by not buying goods from settlements or by choosing to buy Palestinian goods instead? Surely this is why we are a free country.
Disagreeing with the policies of the Israeli Government has nothing to do with antisemitism. After all, many Israelis disagree with their own Government. This Bill will not promote community cohesion but do the opposite, opening more divisions. Like others, I fear it may be detrimental to the British Jewish community. I hope this Bill will be substantially changed in Committee and beyond, because I do not understand why we need it.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
This poorly drafted Bill will have far-reaching consequences for the UK’s protection and promotion of human rights overseas. I extend my thanks to the coalition of 70 civil society and justice organisations that have expressed strong concerns about this Bill and how it will outlaw a powerful tactic of dissent and freedom of expression that has been used throughout history to achieve social change.
I rise to oppose this Bill and to support our reasoned amendment that would decline to give it a Second Reading. What is at stake today should deeply concern every Member of this House. The Bill risks significantly undermining support for groups around the world that are facing persecution and international human rights violations. Labour steadfastly supports a negotiated diplomatic settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on two states, and opposes the expansion of illegal settlements, settler violence, evictions and demolitions. But how realistic is that when an Israeli national security Minister has pledged to “crush” Palestinians “one by one”?
Let us not forget that boycott campaigns have existed right across the political spectrum and have long been used as peaceful and principled tools to fight oppression and injustice. They are a form of protest that should be protected in a democratic society. Last year, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities asked councils to divest from Russia following the illegal invasion of Ukraine, and he clearly recognised councils’ economic importance and that moral considerations should inform what they do, so why can they not be trusted to make their own choices now?
This Bill is so broad and destructive that it will completely prevent public bodies from taking responsible and ethical decisions in relation to human rights abuses in their investment and procurement decisions. Although the Secretary of State argues that there are safeguards in the Bill, he knows they will do nothing to limit the damage this Bill will cause.
I am proud to represent the city of Liverpool, a city that has never faltered in its solidarity with international liberation struggles. In the 1980s, when the African National Congress and South African trade unions were fighting apartheid, as a city we mobilised across the board to support their struggle. Trade unionists organised in Ford factories to smuggle ANC literature in the boots of cars, and seafarers dropped parcels at South African ports. The boycott movement played a significant role in successfully turning the tide on the apartheid Government, at a time when many powerful international Governments, including our own Thatcher-led Government, supported the regime. The importance of international solidarity when waging a struggle such as that against apartheid cannot be underestimated and this rings as true today as it has throughout history. In the words of Nelson Mandela:
“our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians”.
His words resonate today, with injustices and violations of international humanitarian law across the globe still demanding accountability. Now, as then, international pressure will be key to achieving peace and justice.
Let us be clear: the aim of the Bill is to limit our ability to take action to protest, and the chilling effect that will be created is immeasurable. Perhaps the most chilling aspect of the Bill is the so-called “gagging clause”, whereby not only will public officials be prevented from raising the issue of human rights abuses in financial decision making, but it will be illegal for them to refer to the Bill as the reason preventing them from making a financial decision influenced by human rights abuses. For a Government who claim to champion freedom of speech, this is the depths of hypocrisy. It should make Members in all parts of this House seriously consider the impact of their vote today.
Today’s vote is historic and it is up to us to decide which side of history we are on: are we a nation that champions freedom of expression and conscience, one that encourages acts of solidarity with the oppressed, or are we a nation that curbs even the basic right to speak out about violations and abuses of human rights? Vote for the reasoned amendment. Decline to give this Bill a Second Reading.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I strongly support this legislation, and I want to thank all constituents who have been in touch with me to tell me their views on it. It is my honour and privilege to represent a constituency that is home to a substantial Jewish community.
As we have heard this evening, the BDS movement is deeply divisive. The founder of the group and many of its leadership figures do not recognise the right of Israel to exist. They have no commitment to a negotiated settlement and want to drive the two sides apart, not bring them together.
As has been pointed out, these local boycotts split communities here in Britain. Many Jewish people feel a deep sense of connection to Israel, so they could feel intimidated and victimised if their local council were to pursue a boycott. The spillover of anti-Israel to anti-Jewish attitudes and discrimination is illustrated by the supermarket that, in 2014, took kosher foods off the shelf after protesters gathered outside in support of a boycott of Israel.
Moreover, the BDS movement often seeks to justify its campaign using the allegation that Israel can be equated with apartheid South Africa. That is a pernicious slur. In falsely accusing Israel of racism, it singles out the world’s only distinctively Jewish state for unjustified and disproportionate attack. That falls squarely within the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism and we should always reject it. I am gravely concerned that BDS activity has sometimes legitimised and driven antisemitism, and I note that the Communities Secretary has stated that BDS has led to
“appalling antisemitic rhetoric and abuse”.
There is no justification for a boycott or sanctions against Israel. Cutting economic ties with Israel will do nothing to further the peace process, or to get negotiations restarted. Israel is our ally. It is the only real democracy in the middle east; the only country in the middle east where equality for women is fully protected; the only one where the rights of the LGBT community are respected; and the only one with a genuinely free press and a fiercely independent judiciary. We should be strengthening economic, cultural and academic links with Israel, not severing them.
Deeper engagement with Israel means that we as a country can play a stronger role in supporting peace and reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians. It also brings advantages for jobs and economic growth here in the UK. I welcome the 2030 road map for bilateral relations between our two countries, which was signed in March and will boost tech, trade and security ties. The phenomenal energy of Israel’s digital economy and its cutting-edge pharmaceutical sector are just two reasons why trade with Israel is an important source of prosperity for us in Britain. In 2017, the Health Minister Lord O’Shaughnessy estimated that every year some 100 million NHS prescription items in England are made by companies in Israel. If we listened to the BDS movement and adopted its approach, we would see major disruption of NHS procurement of the medication that so many of us need and, inevitably, that would lead to rising costs.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I join my right hon. Friend in welcoming today’s legislation. BDS activists who bully councils into adopting these measures are also bullying the UK’s advertising industry. For example, Stop Funding Hate and Ethical Consumer are pro-BDS groups that tell their supporters to follow the BDS national committee, a group with links to Hamas and other designated terrorist groups. Does she agree that today we can, certainly as a first step, set an example in tackling BDS within public bodies?
Theresa Villiers
Indeed. Today is our opportunity to take a stand against BDS and I encourage as many hon. Members as possible to do that.
As part of the largest ever deal between an Israeli and a UK company, Rolls-Royce is delivering engines for El Al Dreamliner aircraft, supporting many highly skilled jobs in Britain. That type of massive commercial opportunity would be a thing of the past if we let these BDS boycotts take hold and spread.
In conclusion, this is a timely Bill that I hope the House will back. I am deeply disappointed that Labour has said that it is voting against it today. The question is: do you support boycotts against Israel or don’t you? I am strongly opposed to boycotts of Israel, which is why I am voting for the Bill this evening. I am proud that it is a Conservative Government who have listened to the Jewish community on this vital issue and brought forward the Bill it asked for to ban council boycotts. Israel is our friend and ally and we should be trying to increase trade with Israel, not trying to ban it. There is no justification for local councils adopting their own international trade policy. These are rightly matters for our democratically elected Government in Westminster. I urge hon. and right hon. Members to support the Bill in the Division Lobby this evening.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I had been looking forward to this legislation. As the chair of Labour Friends of Israel, I am against efforts to destabilise, delegitimise and destroy Israel, the world’s only Jewish state. The purpose of the BDS movement, with its talk of apartheid, genocide and ghettos, is to demonise and, ultimately, destroy Israel. I had hoped we might see a simple Bill designed to restrain the ambitions of BDS, with its single target, the state of Israel. Boycotts are not new for Jews. On 1 April this year, we marked the 90th anniversary of the Nazis’ first nationwide action against the Jews, a boycott targeting Jewish businesses and professionals. There is a long, dark history of boycotts directed against Jewish people. For the world’s only Jewish state to be targeted in this way shows complete indifference to that history and a single-minded determination to destroy Israel’s right to exist.
The effect of BDS is felt not only in Israel. A 2019 Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Public Diplomacy report concluded that the victims of BDS include Jews in the diaspora. Let us think what it means to be Jewish in Britain today. There is an understandable affinity between Israel and Jews in this country, but every day Jewish students confront obsessive campaigns for an academic boycott of Israeli universities. BDS seeks to prevent Israeli artists, actors and musicians from performing in Britain. It wants libraries to remove Israeli authors and to “no-platform” Israeli speakers.
Supporters of BDS often seek to draw a comparison with South Africa. The measures taken at that time were designed to end apartheid and bring about the democratic state that we see today. But—here I agree with the Secretary of State—BDS does not support a two-state solution, advocate peace negotiations or seek to bring communities together. To be fair to its leader, Omar Barghouti, he is clear that he opposes a Jewish state in any part of what he calls Palestine. We all know what the chant “From the river to the sea” actually means. BDS is a policy designed to end Israel’s existence. The movement opposes the idea of normalisation; in fact, normalisation has become a pejorative term in relation to Israel and Palestine thanks to the efforts of such movements.
Of course, BDS is not without success: a vociferous campaign against SodaStream led to the closure of a plant in the west bank and the loss of 600 Palestinian jobs. BDS puts at risk the 10,000 UK businesses that have import-export arrangements. The UK is Israel’s second largest trading partner, with a relationship worth about £7 billion. Israeli companies provide one in seven NHS drugs, estimated to save us around £3 billion per year. As we have heard, we are negotiating a new free trade arrangement, which will vastly improve benefits for both countries. Our security arrangements help to save thousands of lives and regularly help to foil terrorist attacks in the UK, yet BDS wants to end military co-operation.
It is against that background that I had hoped to welcome this legislation; instead, we get a dog’s dinner—a Bill that in its present form can serve only to guarantee conflict between the Government, local authorities and other public bodies, and will inevitably result in endless legal challenges. It seeks to limit the freedom for councils and other public bodies to speak out in the face of obvious injustice. Far from not singling out Israel—a key demand of many Jewish and anti-BDS groups—specific attention is drawn to Israel in the Bill.
This is a Bill that has lost focus. Its scattergun approach and willingness to confuse legitimate political protest with what should be simple powers to restrict the demands associated with the BDS movement will provide endless publicity opportunities for Israel’s enemies. It is unworkable in its current form. If there is to be any hope of the Bill becoming a reasonable, practical measure, it requires substantial improvement. I hope that the Secretary of State will not play party or petty politics but seek to build consensus with people across the House who are willing to work together on measures designed to rid us of the malign influence of the BDS movement.
At the same time, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) that, although I am full of admiration for her good intentions and acknowledge that the reasoned amendment has been framed in response to the mess before us, I am not entirely sure that it cuts mustard either. Nevertheless, in deference to her good intentions, I will support the amendment tonight. If I am fortunate enough to serve on the Bill Committee, I hope we can find common ground to create workable legislation to tackle the folly of BDS ambitions and its one and only target. I hope we can achieve that without imposing ludicrous restrictions on legitimate political activities, or the freedom of speech of local government and those who represent public bodies. Having waited so long, tonight is a tremendous disappointment for me, but there is still time to put things right. I urge Ministers not to ignore the opportunity.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I welcome many of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), and particularly his final comments about wanting to work together across the House to see how the Bill can be improved. It will, I think, come as no surprise to many that I am uncomfortable with the Bill as it stands—and arguably more, not less, so after hearing the Secretary of State’s almost exclusive focus on the BDS movement and its antisemitic agenda.
The point of the Bill was to fulfil a Conservative party manifesto commitment, so let me explain why I am unhappy with it. First, as it stands, the Bill fulfils something different from our manifesto commitment; secondly, it seriously undermines our commitment to freedom and tolerance; thirdly, it gives a special and exclusive right not just to Israel but to parts of Israel that are either annexed or illegally occupied; fourthly, it effectively outlaws even the express thought of disagreeing with the Bill, should it be passed; and lastly, it could backfire—and it is elements of the Jewish communities who say that, not me.
Let me bring the detail alive. Our manifesto did not mention Israel or the BDS; it focused on preventing
“public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect …sanctions…against foreign countries.”
That commitment was, absolutely rightly, country-agnostic, yet clause 3(7) specifically protects not just Israel but the Golan Heights and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which are of course not countries. The provisions exempt Israel alone from any change in Government policy—for example, the sanctions on Russia—and that could be changed only by primary legislation.
Our manifesto also rightly committed to championing free speech and tolerance. As I mentioned earlier, as have others, the Secretary of State for Education legislated only recently specifically to enforce that commitment on our universities; now, however, as a university vice-chancellor put it to me, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has told him that he cannot even say, were it allowed, that he would prefer his university not to purchase anything manufactured on illegal settlements in the occupied territories. Is that really what is intended?
This Bill, as presented on Second Reading, appears to be a pro-Israel and anti-BDS Bill much more than the country-agnostic anti-boycott Bill promised in our manifesto. In turn, that has caused—there was no point in some Members denying this earlier—some Jewish commentators in Jewish media, Jewish student unions and Jewish civic society groups to express real concern that the Bill risks backfiring. As The Jewish Chronicle said, it would be
“bitterly ironic if this…bill”
to tackle the
“anti-Israel BDS, ends up hurting those who so many…have sought to help”.
The Union of Jewish Students went further and said that the Bill may
“pit Jews against other minorities”.
So what to do? The Labour party solution is to rip the Bill up and start again in unspecified ways. Our solution should be different. We should fulfil our manifesto commitment to legislate against public-body sanctions in a country-agnostic way, but we do not need a special rule for Israel, let alone for annexed or occupied areas that the United Kingdom does not recognise as a legitimate part of Israel. I very much hope that on Third Reading the Government will reconsider clause 4(1)(b), which as it stands is antidemocratic, and drop clause 3(7), which is neither necessary nor appropriate. I will therefore abstain in the vote on Second Reading. I very much hope that the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider drafting amendments will be strongly realised on Third Reading.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I remind Members that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
First, I want to be very clear that the Liberal Democrats condemn antisemitism. Anti-Jewish hatred has absolutely no place in our society, and we must all do more—as individuals, as political parties and as a Parliament—to tackle antisemitism in all its forms. Nor do we support the BDS movement or any other singling out of Israel driven by anti-Jewish hatred. However, we do not believe that this piece of legislation is going to help to tackle antisemitism. In fact, as many Members throughout the House, including the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), have already set out, the measures in the Bill could even be counterproductive, which is frankly the last thing we want.
Liberal Democrats are also deeply concerned by a series of the provisions in the Bill. First, it will greatly restrict the ability of public bodies to take action against human rights abuses. Many public bodies as well as civil society organisations are alarmed by the persecution of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, which has led to the detention of more than a million people by the Chinese state. Regrettably, the Government have failed to recognise the genocide that is taking place in Xinjiang, even though Parliament has called on them to do so. It is appalling that a local council will be prevented from calling what is taking place in Xinjiang what it is—a genocide—simply because the Government continue to take a cowardly approach. It seems extraordinary that a local council or museum would risk a significant fine by deciding that they did not want to buy products coming from Xinjiang.
Many of us in this place will remember the popular boycotts of South African goods in the 1980s, which were an effective way of demonstrating opposition to apartheid and which added to the international political pressure to end the regime. In this country, it was local councils that led the way then—and thank goodness they did—but under these new provisions, such action would be illegal.
Secondly, this piece of legislation represents an unjustified restriction on the power of local communities to take decisions for themselves. As a Liberal Democrat, I believe in liberalism, federalism and localism. We believe that it is up to local authorities and public bodies to be able to decide for themselves what they do. If local councillors are elected on a manifesto that includes a commitment to a boycott on ethical or environmental grounds, we believe that those councillors should be held to account by their local electorate, not banned by a distant central Government.
Thirdly, we are hugely concerned by the restriction on the freedom of speech on public bodies and elected representatives in clause 4—the gagging clause. The Bill does not just restrict a public body from engaging in boycott and divestment; it restricts it from saying that it would support such a boycott if it were legal. That represents a significant overreach, which will erode a fundamental democratic right—that of free speech.
Fourthly, I echo the concerns raised by other Members that the provisions in clause 3 represent an attempt by the Government to change their position on the status of the occupied territories. The UK Government have always made a distinction between the occupied territories and Israel, in line with international law. That is clear in everything from our trading arrangements to the advice given to businesses looking to operate in the occupied territories. However, the Bill conflates the two by listing the occupied territories as exempt from the Bill alongside Israel. The Bill goes against not just the widespread consensus held on both sides of the House and by our allies, but international law. What an irony it is that, at the heart of a Bill designed to restrict local councils from speaking out about international issues, we find the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities trying to conduct his own foreign policy. It is almost as if he has forgotten the purported purpose of his own legislation.
On today of all days, when we have awoken yet again to more violence in the region, it is incredibly depressing that the Government are choosing not to stand up for international law, at a time when there is such hopelessness around the conflict.
In conclusion, I firmly agree that we need to do more on the pressing need to tackle antisemitism. I agree that the BDS movement targeting Israel will not help to achieve peace between Israel and Palestine. If there is a need to beef-up legislation on hate crime or prejudice against protected characteristics, such as race and religion, Liberal Democrats would wholeheartedly support such a move. Local councils should not be singling out one country and holding it to a higher standard than others because of their own prejudice, but closing down debate on international human rights issues will not achieve the stated aim of stamping out antisemitism. The resolution to the problem is not to clamp down on debate on international human rights issues. The Liberal Democrats will oppose the Bill for that reason, and will be voting in favour of the reasoned amendment tabled by those on the Opposition Front Bench.
I urge the Secretary of State to rethink this legislation and work across party lines to resolve issues of prejudice and discrimination by more practical and fair means.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of the legislation this evening. I welcome the fact that we are following through on a manifesto commitment to bring forward legislation in this difficult, sensitive and complicated area. I very much agree with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), and my right hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Sir Simon Clarke) and for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers).
We have had a number of speeches striking slightly different tones. There was a very good speech from the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who tried to strike a reasonable tone and explained the rationale behind Labour’s reasoned amendment. Unfortunately for her and for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), who also made a thoughtful and intelligent speech, many of the speeches from the Opposition Benches seemed to be in favour of boycotts, and wanting to keep a candle burning for being able to use boycotts, divestment and sanctions as tools at a local authority level, or among other public bodies. We on the Conservative Benches are clear that we do not want to see public money being used in that way. We are clear about the main purpose of this legislation, which is to tackle, as has already been discussed, the BDS movement, with its pernicious effects, its links to antisemitism and the very ugly and divisive character behind it. To any Conservative Member who stands up and says that that was not the purpose of our commitment in the manifesto, I say that that is just not true. The gestation of the Bill—the process that it has gone through and the internal discussion—has very much centred on trying to do something for the first time about the BDS movement.
To those Members who argue that the problem with this legislation is that it will attract legal challenge, I say that every single time we have tried to do something about the BDS movement it gets a legal challenge. We know that the BDS movement will try to fight this in the court. That is not a surprise, but that should not be a reason for us to resile from our commitment to do something about the matter.
There will be Members in the House today who believe that the BDS movement, leaving aside its ugly antisemitic characteristics, is a legitimate way of trying to challenge the state of Israel. We heard that in some of the speeches. The trouble with the BDS movement, as we know, is that time and again it singles out the state of Israel in a way that it does not do with other countries.
As for the Labour party trying to maintain a reasonableness about its position, I say look at what it does when it is in government. When the Welsh Labour Government tried to introduce a new national procurement note in 2020, what did they do? Surprise, surprise, they singled out one state for potential sanctions—the state of Israel. I am talking about Labour Ministers of the Crown today serving in the Welsh Government in Cardiff, so Members will forgive me if I do not have total confidence in the reasonableness of the Labour position that it is trying to put forward.
Crispin Blunt
The BDS is a Palestinian-led movement. Who else is it supposed to protest against? I realise that it has a global application, but it is a Palestinian-led movement about Palestine.
Stephen Crabb
My hon. Friend is right: it is a Palestinian-led movement. When we consider the individuals and organisations—Palestinian and otherwise—at the root of it, we can see that the movement is deeply problematic. I do not believe that any Conservative should be identifying and aligning themselves with any aspect of the BDS movement.
I welcome the legislation. I welcome, too, the fact that the Secretary of State has made a very strong commitment to working with others and seeing whether improvements can be made to the Bill. He has shown a genuine openness in that regard. None the less, improving the Bill cannot mean watering it down to make it ineffective, which we know the opponents of the Bill—the BDS movement outside this place—want us to do. I hope that the Government will remain robust and clear-sighted on this, but I also hope that we can work pragmatically and get good legislation on the statute book.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I am pleased to contribute to what has been a generally thoughtful debate, from the moment that the shadow Secretary of State rose to speak. I am sorry that the Secretary of State left so soon after his own rather provocative contribution, because he would have benefited from hearing many of the speeches.
This is an ill-judged and unnecessary attack on local democracy—unnecessary not least because of the provisions of the Local Government Act 1988, which, alongside the notorious clause 28 prohibiting local authorities from “promotion of homosexuality”, also banned non-commercial consideration on contracts on the basis of
“the country or territory of origin.”
That remains in place, so the Secretary of State has law to refer to, without needing to bring forward this Bill, if there are the problems he describes.
That legislation was a response by the Thatcher Government to a campaign co-ordinated by Sheffield City Council. We were the first council in 1981, under the leadership of David Blunkett, to pledge to end all links with apartheid. Many others followed, and in 1983 we set up Local Authorities Against Apartheid, developing a network of around 120 councils taking action—action that was subsequently praised by Nelson Mandela after his release for its contribution to ending apartheid.
As someone who was in the leadership of the anti-apartheid movement for 20 years, I do not accept the application of the term apartheid to Israel, although I have to say that, if the policy trajectory of the current Israeli Government continues in the way it has, that comparison will be increasingly difficult to resist. My point about the action that we organised is that it demonstrates the long history of local authority action over human rights, which is something we should be proud of, and of local politicians responding to local concerns, whether about South Africa 40 years ago or about China today.
Clause 3 will enable action to be taken where dispensation is given—by the whim of the Secretary of State, not even by Parliament. However, that highlights the exception provided in clause 3(7) in relation to Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights.
I want to be clear that I do not support the BDS campaign against Israel. I do think that we should long ago have taken action on economic engagement with the illegal settlements, to match our words with positive measures, and it is extraordinary that this Bill prevents public bodies from implementing the Government’s own advice to business not to trade with the illegal settlements. However, for those of us who do not support BDS, that does not mean we should support banning it, and much of Israeli society would agree.
I am grateful to Yachad, which many colleagues will know is a significant voice within the mainstream British Jewish community, campaigning for a political resolution in which Israel thrives alongside a viable and independent Palestinian state. In its briefing on this Bill, it drew parallels with the debate in Israel on its own anti-boycott law in 2011, in which Tzipi Livni, then Leader of the Opposition in the Knesset and previously Foreign Secretary, said:
“I disagree with those that demand boycotts, but I will fight for their right to express their views.”
Dan Meridor of Likud, then Deputy Prime Minister, said:
“I oppose boycotts, but they should not be illegal.”
Ruvi Rivlin, then Leader of the Knesset and subsequently President of Israel, slammed the law for
“turning freedom of speech into a civil injustice.”
The Government argue that this Bill is necessary in opposing antisemitism, but, as others have said, there are important voices within the Jewish community who disagree. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for students, I have worked closely with the leadership of the National Union of Students in challenging antisemitism within its own organisation, and on every step of that journey I have liaised with the Union of Jewish Students. Nobody will question the UJS’s credentials as a robust opponent of antisemitism. At its annual conference recently, UJS unanimously passed a resolution reaffirming its opposition to BDS, but rejecting any attempt to outlaw it. One of those involved in that motion wrote recently in The Times:
“Using legislation to outlaw BDS will do nothing in the fight against antisemitism… We may disagree with the BDS movement—we may even think that there are some people who support the BDS movement who are motivated by antisemitism—but the tactics of boycott, divestment, and sanctions are non-violent and legitimate.”
The Secretary of State has argued that it is his responsibility to bring forward this legislation in the context of the Government’s manifesto commitment. I am conscious of the fact that the Government have fairly casually disregarded manifesto commitments in the past, but even if that were his justification, he should recognise that things have changed enormously since 2019. The new extremist Israeli Government are moving from de facto to de jure annexation of the occupied territories. Illegal settlements have been legalised and many more are planned, with the responsibility for them given to a far-right Minister who denies the existence of the Palestinian people and has been condemned by the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
Today, we have seen the massive Israeli attack on Jenin, and not the first; it follows months of raids across the west bank and on Nablus. Across the west bank, settler attacks—killing and injuring Palestinians, torching their homes, their businesses and their cars—are being encouraged by the Israeli Government and those responsible are going unpunished. All that is designed to end the prospect of a viable Palestinian state and frustrate attempts to secure a just settlement.
Those Israeli civil society voices who support our ambition for a two-state solution have made it clear that there could not be a worse time for the UK to send a signal that we see the occupied territories as part of Israel in the way that this Bill is framed. We should not do it. I urge the Government to think again.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I draw the attention of the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), with whom I very largely agreed.
I want to start with a challenge to my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) to finish off the answer to my question about BDS itself. BDS is a Palestinian-led movement, so it is not remotely surprising that its attention centres on the policies of Israel, which is in illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. It is Israeli policy that is preventing any possibility of a two-state solution from becoming a reality and BDS is the only movement within Palestinian civil society that is pursuing a non-violent course of resistance.
We need to ask ourselves some fundamental questions about what we expect of the occupied Palestinians. If we present the BDS movement in the very extreme way—described to me as “disingenuous” by someone who has messaged me in the course of this debate—it has been presented in this House, we are denying the Palestinians in that sense by banning their only legitimate way of expressing resistance to that occupation.
That is where we need to take a step or two back. We are now on the receiving end of more than 50 years of illegal Israeli occupation of somebody else’s territory. In an egregious way, Israel has occupied and settled that territory with 700,000 Jewish people. The physical result of those settlements is that a two-state solution is now in effect impossible.
There needs to be some serious consideration of the implications of Israeli policy, because it has been deliberate. We sit here parroting our support for a two-state solution, and the only point of difference I have with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) who is now Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee is that I am afraid I now do support a one-state solution, because a two-state solution is now impossible.
I hope that hon. Members on the Front Bench will reflect that the people who convinced me of that were the negotiation support unit that the Department for International Development was paying for in 2002 to give the Palestinian negotiators a bit of capacity and heft in conducting negotiations with their Israeli counterparts. Diana Buttu and Michael Tarazi were themselves then in favour of a one-state solution. What is wrong with that as a vision? Indeed, it would mirror the original sense of moral purpose about the state of Israel. It was a great achievement of the 20th century to find a homeland for the Jewish people, who have been on the wrong end of history for hundreds and hundreds of years, particularly the appalling policies towards Jewish people in Europe.
I say to my colleagues: do not try to present the one-state solution as a terrorist answer driving Israelis and Jews into the sea—that is absolute nonsense and of course it will never happen. If we are about trying to create national reconciliation and a path to peace, we need now to start thinking originally. Palestinians are looking over the wall at Israel and, strangely enough, young professional Palestinians want what the Israelis have. I do not think that Israelis in a similar position want to send their children, in 20, 30 or 40 years’ time, to police the occupation.
We see today the terrible events in Jenin, which are a product of the disaster and false horizon that the Oslo process has turned out to be for the Palestinian people. There is desperate anger in occupied parts of Palestine, where everything is being taken away from people, but here we are attacking a movement that tries—although, of course, there are elements of unacceptable rhetoric—to stay within the limits of peaceful resistance to illegal occupation.
It would be thought absolutely astonishing that we are faced with this measure in the British Parliament. We need to think back on our history and the Balfour declaration. There were two parts to that declaration. We have delivered on one of them, but I am afraid that the rights of the people who were living in the territory that is now Israel have been violated in the most profound and fundamental way. We now have to deal with the dispossession that came of the establishment of the state of Israel. We need to deal with the results of this illegal occupation. We in this House are about to take away not only the ability to seek peacefully the means to do that through local authorities, but people’s right to express support for it. This is a very un-Conservative measure and it needs to be rejected at the first opportunity, which is this evening, and that is how I will be voting.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt).
Like many others, I think this is a sordid and grubby little Bill that takes away many of the political freedoms that we have enjoyed for decades in this country. It follows, of course, similar pieces of legislation from the Government over the past few years. They have sought to restrict our freedom to dissent and protest, but this Bill goes further, as others have already remarked upon. For the first time that I can remember, the Bill seeks to criminalise thought as well as deeds. That takes it into a whole new dimension and is reason enough for it to be thrown out by this House tonight.
We live in a dangerous and uncertain world. Humanity faces many challenges, some of them existential in nature. I would argue that this is a time in our public discourse and public life when we need more moral judgments and ethical considerations, not fewer as the Bill tries to suggest. In fact, the Bill does not actually outlaw local authorities and public authorities taking ethical and moral judgments; it simply outlaws them taking ones that the Government disagree with. The Government are trying to tape to themselves not just the legitimacy of being the elected political Administration of the country, but the role of arbiter and mouthpiece for all of civil society. That is quite ridiculous.
As others have said, many people elect their public officials to represent their point of view, and they have a right to do so. If we constrain the ability of the representative, we also constrain the ability of the people. It is in the field of pension policy that this is most ridiculous. Like others, I am, since the age of 60, in receipt of a local government pension. That is because I paid into a savings fund for the years in which I worked in local government. It is my money and that of my fellow pensioners. What right do this Government have to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own money?
The Government have sought to place the question of Israel right at the heart of this legislation and of their argument. It is fundamentally based on a flawed premise: that criticism of the Israeli Government or of Israeli state policies is in itself antisemitic. That is wrong. We in this House should never get ourselves into the position of thinking that we have to choose between defending the human and political rights of Palestinians in the middle east, and fighting antisemitism on the streets of our own country and throughout the world. We can and we must do both.
I had the privilege to attend last week a meeting called by Yachad, a Jewish organisation, in this House. I heard Michael Sfard, a distinguished human rights lawyer from Israel, speak on the situation. He gave a concise picture of what is happening in Israel today and described the actions of the current Israeli Government—the most right-wing, anti-Palestinian Government that Israel has ever had. He described how two projects are under way in that area of the world at the moment: the first is the de jure annexation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories into the state of Israel, and the second is the changing of constitutional law inside the state of Israel to allow that to happen. That is what has provoked mass demonstrations by the ordinary Israeli public on the streets of Israel, where hundreds of thousands of people are turning up to protest.
That is what has led to a situation in which the current Government of Israel has opinion poll ratings down at 20%. If there were an election today, they would be thrown out of office by a landslide. Yet in the context of what is happening on the streets of the middle east at the moment, and of even the American Administration trying to put distance between themselves and President Netanyahu, what is the policy of the UK Government? Their policy—an outlier in the international community—is to welcome the Israeli Administration with open arms. No one would be more pleased or gain more succour from the passing of such legislation than the current Israeli Administration, and no one would be more crestfallen about its passing than those of progressive liberal opinion inside the state of Israel, who do not want that to happen. The choice that we need to make is whether we will stand with the people of Israel and of Palestine in protecting their human and political rights against a very right-wing anti-Palestinian Administration, or give succour—almost alone in the world in doing so—to that Administration.
I have already run out of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but let me finish with this. We have to ask ourselves why the Bill comes at this particular time, in the middle of all the crises in the world and the domestic economic crises right here on our own doorstep. Why this piece of legislation at this particular time? I think the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) hit the nail on the head: this is a grubby measure by the governing party to try to embarrass His Majesty’s Opposition for party political advantage. It is sordid, bad politics. It will not help Jewish communities in this country and it will not help to find a solution in the middle east for all the people who live there.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I join the Front-Bench spokespeople in their tributes to the late Lord Kerslake. I will never forget the help and advice that he gave me on delivering the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. It is sadly ironic that the Kerslake commission, on which I was proud to serve, was due to meet tomorrow to approve a long-awaited report, but it has been cancelled because of his sad death.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on this long-awaited Bill, in which we take on—let us be clear—the BDS movement directly. This legislation is an endeavour for which I have been campaigning for many years, and I thank him for his tireless work in bringing this policy to fruition. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). I know his views—they are very clear, and he has espoused them on many occasions in the Chamber. He is vocal about them, and he is rightly held in regard, but I am afraid that he is wrong.
The House will be aware that the ability for public bodies to take powers unto themselves that should correctly be reserved for the Government has sown division and discord across our nations. Calls for universities to sever ties with academic partners in Israel have led to a great number of prejudicial motions at our institutions, isolating and alienating Jewish students. The National Union of Students has reported that anti-Israel hatred is plainly linked to the racist treatment of British Jews, corroborating findings from the Community Security Trust, which found that campus antisemitism has hiked by 22% in the past year alone. This brand of student politics should not be permitted at our universities, let alone in our great democratic institutions. This is not news. When I was at university the same things went on—and that was a long time ago.
Speaking of democracy, I shall elaborate on the claim that I have heard in recent days that this Bill somehow harms our commitment to free speech. I believe that it is the proponents of BDS who are pitting one community against another, which results in a chilling effect on honest debate. It is intimidation, marginalisation and incitement to hatred. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), a former Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who said in 2021 that
“successive studies have shown the single best statistical predictor of anti-Jewish hostility is the amount of BDS activity”.—[Official Report, 22 February 2022; Vol. 709, c. 213.]
Hon. Members do not have to take my word for it. Omar Barghouti, founder of the BDS movement, wrote 20 years ago in 2003 that
“the two-state solution for the Palestinian-Israel conflict is finally dead…the more just, moral and therefore enduring alternative...the one-state solution...where, by definition Jews will be a minority”.
The BDS national committee, the directive organ of the BDS movement, has on its board organisations including the Council of National and Islamic Forces in Palestine, and a coalition of proscribed terrorist groups, including Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and many others. The council’s leader, Khaled al-Batsh, acts as a senior official for Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The council’s general co-ordinator, Mahmoud Nawajaa, has publicly supported the armed wing of Hamas, the terrorist organisation that heinously murdered three British nationals—a mother and her two daughters—in April. Today in Holland, two BDS fundraisers were arrested for securing €5 million to go directly to Hamas.
The propositions set out in the Bill are a safeguard against the rising tide of discrimination and double standards, and will provide the balance crucially needed in our national conversation. The Bill will empower the Government to introduce secondary legislation to enforce a boycott of states committing human rights abuses. In response to colleagues who have cited particular countries, that means that the Government can introduce those measures through secondary legislation. In turn, public bodies will be able legitimately to advance their own trade sanctions in support of the national interest, as determined by the democratically elected Government. Surely, that is welcome. This is precisely what will, I hope, happen shortly in relation to Russia.
The Bill will inevitably generate much debate, but I restate its importance in protecting the Government’s foreign policy interests, the Jewish community and the wellbeing of the many citizens who have grown tired of grandstanding public bodies exploiting the public purse and the money on which they depend. The Government will have my full support on this important matter. I listened carefully to the shadow spokesperson, who gave a very reasonable speech. When the Bill goes into Committee—I hope that it will go into Committee—all these different elements should be examined carefully to make sure that we end up with a Bill which, I hope, can command the support of the overwhelming majority in the House.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
It is genuinely an honour to speak in this debate. There have been some incredible contributions, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for the way in which she recalibrated the tone of the debate. It got off to an appalling start, so I congratulate her on her tone and the way in which she has engaged in discussion of this vexed issue.
This is a difficult Bill. It is one of the most freedom-damaging, human rights-destroying pieces of legislation that I have ever seen. It is badly drafted and ill thought-through. I take issue with the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). The concept of trying to correct an appalling Bill that cannot be corrected is not one that I share. That said, the Labour party has tabled a reasoned amendment, which rightly declines to give the Bill a Second Reading, and sets out a compelling case as to why it should be given short shrift. I speak in favour and support of the powerful arguments contained in the amendment.
The Bill will, as we have heard, prevent public bodies from making decisions to procure goods or services, or invest or divest according to their own ethical framework. Local authorities have long played an important role in the protection and promotion of human rights overseas, for example, in opposing the apartheid regime in South Africa, as Members have mentioned. The Bill will make the Westminster Government the ultimate arbiter of what is acceptable. As the reasoned amendment sets out, the Bill is a clear and obvious fetter on the principle of devolution and on freedom of speech. By hamstringing the due diligence that public bodies carry out, it will entirely disregard the European convention on human rights.
The Bill will be a disaster for the environment and the drive to net zero, by withdrawing the freedom of public bodies to boycott countries that pollute our environment. As for Palestine, which has been the subject of a lot of attention in this debate, the legal opinion of Richard Hermer KC, commissioned by Labour Front Benchers, states that
“legislation prohibiting local authorities from taking steps to promote Palestinian self-determination within the OPT, taken with the terms of the exclusion in Clause 3(7), would likely place the United Kingdom in breach of international law obligations.”
Labour’s amendment points to the way in which that clause conflates the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan heights with the state of Israel, undermining the UK’s long-standing cross-party position, and running contrary to UN Security Council resolutions, specifically resolution 2334.
By singling out the territories under Israel’s control in this legislation, the UK will give licence to the continuation of the terrible events that unfolded in Jenin today, without an appropriate, legitimate and peaceful response. No other people should be put in the position of the Palestinians. At this very moment, we are seeing the images from Jenin, where a massive number of Israeli occupation forces are committing what the Palestinian president has called a “war crime” as they storm the city and refugee camp. They have killed at least nine Palestinians, including three children, and injured countless innocent civilians. Over 180 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces since the beginning of 2023—about one a day. At least 34 of those have been children. The destruction of schools, homes and lives is being carried out with total impunity.
How many times have we heard warm and ineffective words from Ministers at the Dispatch Box? One wonders how such an attitude and policy would have played out in respect of South Africa. The Tory Government of the day deemed the South African apartheid regime legal, and Nelson Mandela a terrorist. If that policy had succeeded, he would have been left to rot in jail. What has happened to any sense of a moral compass in our country? Have we forgotten the lessons of the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa?
The Bill would make it an offence for someone from a public body to say that, if not for the legislative ban contained in the Bill, they would have chosen to pursue some form of sanction. That has been rightly called a “Minority Report” provision and I know it worries many Members across this House. The Bill is wholly incoherent, given how we have rightly imposed sanctions on Russia following its illegal invasion and occupation of Ukrainian territory. The Bill is simply wrong—an offence against human decency and international law. I will be exercising one of my human rights, the freedom of expression and of conscience, by voting consistently against it at every stage. It is unworthy of this House and I have no doubt that history will judge it so. I urge Members to support the reasoned amendment, but to reject the Bill in its entirety.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British Jews. I am privileged to represent a very diverse constituency with a large and established Jewish population, and indeed many people from every possible religious background. It is great to see that, on the whole, those different communities get on extremely well, but this legislation is necessary for the reasons that many Members have outlined.
As the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) said, the long-standing BDS campaign creates a situation where the state of Israel, and Jewish people here in the UK and elsewhere, are singled out for criticism and discrimination. However, like my neighbour and hon. Friend, the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), I will be voting for the legislation, having noted a number of areas in which improvement is required, which I hope we will be able to address in Committee. I will take each in turn. First, I urge Front-Bench colleagues to give serious consideration to entirely dropping clause 4(1)(b), which has raised a number of concerns among Members. In the context of local government, especially in respect of pensions committees, a significant population of councillors are decision makers for the purposes of the legislation and, as an increasing number of local authorities—especially small ones—move to the committee system, the constituency of members who would be considered decision makers for the purposes of the legislation gets larger and larger.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) will probably remember the late councillor Ray Davies: everywhere you turned, you would find him protesting against something or chaining himself to railings about something else. We can imagine a situation in which a back-bench member of a local authority called to attend a pensions investment committee as a substitute member expresses the view that their preference would be to not make a particular decision because of concerns about the behaviour of a particular Government, and finds themselves in breach of the law as a result. That would seem to have a chilling effect on freedom of speech. We should ensure that those who disagree with a policy are able to express that view while still making a decision that is within the law, as outlined in clause 4(1)(a).
The second piece of important context goes to the point that was raised by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge): we should give our local government colleagues a degree of respect for their common sense in this matter. At the Local Government Association, it was my privilege to do some work on exactly this issue, working with the Local Government Friends of Israel—a very good organisation. Through that process, we identified that, at the time, at most two or three councils had passed BDS motions. We should accord respect to our local government colleagues by removing clause 4(1)(b), recognising that, on the whole, they have been wise and sensible in exercising their powers.
The next issue is the way in which these powers are exercised in respect of contractors and subcontractors. On, for example, an investment committee or a procurement committee charged with making decisions to place contracts, elected members may not necessarily be aware of the decisions and policies of the bodies with which they are contracting. It is not unusual for a local government pension committee to have 15 to 20 investments at any one given time. Given that those private companies may themselves be under similar pressure to exercise BDS views, what is not always going to be transparent to those elected members is how those things are taking effect in practice. We need to ensure that, in bringing in what is intended to be about decision makers in public bodies, we are not losing our desired intention to ensure that BDS is not present in the public sector by ensuring that those bodies that are contracting or subcontracting are also within sight.
Again on my concern in respect of how these decisions will affect elected members in local authorities, the legislation envisages that it will apply where matters are in line with, or outside of, the policy of the Government. Paragraph 9 of the explanatory notes sets out the example of where a specific legislative provision was introduced in respect of sanctions against Russia following the invasion of Ukraine. It is my view that when this legislation passes we need to be completely clear what we mean when we talk about the policy of the Government. Do we mean as expressed in legislation? Do we mean as expressed by the Minister at the Dispatch Box? What is it that we mean when we talk about the policy of the Government? Is it a policy of different Government Departments? We need to make sure, given that it would be a breach of the law to express opposition to it, that the position from which the policy of the Government is drawn is absolutely clear.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), with his very pleasant reference to the late Ray Davies, who was a wonderful campaigner all his life.
A truly appalling piece of legislation has been put before us. It fits into the bigger picture of anti-democratic legislation that this Government have put forward that reduces the rights of free speech and assembly, over-empowers the police, restricts trade unions and tries to criminalise people who seek a place of safety and asylum on our shores. We have to put it in that context; it is yet another attack on the civil liberties of people in this country.
Over 70 organisations have expressed deep misgivings and opposition to the Bill. Muslim organisations, Jewish organisations, trade unions, human rights organisations, libertarian organisations, religious groups and many others have said that the Bill is wrong and that it will damage the civil liberties of everyone in this country. It gives massive power to the Secretary of State effectively to decide what local authorities can say, think or do. If a local authority, for example, decided it wanted to speak up about human rights in a country when a significant number of people from that country were living in its community—for example, there is a very large Somali community in my constituency—would my local authority not be allowed to say anything about Somalia under the Bill? It would have to seek the permission of the Secretary of State before it could do anything, and so it goes on; there are so many other examples.
Having been in this House since the 1980s, I sat through many debates about South Africa. There were many Members over there on the Government Benches—many—who supported the apartheid regime. They openly supported the apartheid regime, called Mandela a terrorist and asked for the banning of the African National Congress in this country. The ANC had its offices in my borough, and the South West Africa People’s Organisation, which led to the liberation of Namibia, had its offices in my constituency. There were calls to ban them and, when local authorities such as Sheffield led the way on local authority action and opposition to apartheid, they faced sanctions from the Government. Why were they so concerned about it, other than to prevent any effective, peaceful show of loyalty and support to the people of South Africa who were facing the horrors of the apartheid regime?
Under this legislation, what we did over South Africa would be impossible or illegal, so we would end up suspending councillors, prosecuting local authorities and surcharging councillors. I am not sure where it would lead. Some of us supported the people of Chile after General Pinochet seized power, and called for a boycott of Chilean goods and a non-investment policy in Chile; again, that would be illegal. On a different basis, some of us called for a boycott of Californian grapes when Californian grape pickers were facing oppression from police forces in California; again, that would be illegal. All the issues around the world that we are faced with, such as Indonesia’s behaviour in West Papua, the failure of Morocco to allow a referendum on the future of Western Sahara, Saudi Arabia and its war against Yemen—any expression of that would be banned by the Bill. A terrifying Bill has been put forward here today.
Most of the Bill has been framed around Palestine and Israel. Many groups in Israel are frightened by the Bill and what goes with it and also believe that there should be justice for the people of Palestine. I spent Saturday evening talking to Mustafa Barghouti of the Palestinian National Initiative, who believes in non-violent resistance to the occupation. He pointed out to me—I noted the figures down as he was talking—that, at the moment on the west bank, there are 150 settlements, 70 more settlements are being planned or actually built at present, more than 400,000 Israeli people have been moved into those settlements and it is impossible for Palestinian people to move around their own area of land. The idea that the products made on those settlements that are sold outside should be seen as legitimate products—they are illegal within terms of international law and within terms of EU law. So I just ask that we understand the importance of the right of protest.
Today in Jenin, as an example of the occupation, 14,000 people are in a refugee camp that is less than 0.4 square kilometres—14,000 people in less than half a square kilometre of land. Israel Defense Forces says that it is not targeting civilians. It is impossible to use any kind of weaponry against the population there without targeting civilians. More have died. More bitterness, more hatred and more problems come down the road. Those people all around the world who want to support the Palestinian people are not antisemitic. They are not anti-Israeli groups, but what they do want is justice for the Palestinian people. That surely would be a much better and stronger message to send out from this House today, rather than the attempt to close down free speech in this country.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Three decades ago, Margaret Thatcher said that the ANC was a “typical terrorist organisation”, adding
“Anyone who thinks it is going to run the government in South Africa is living in cloud-cuckoo land”.
History proved her wrong on that, but that history was shaped by the determined efforts of people worldwide, including millions in this country and many local governments, to boycott South Africa. The lesson is clear: Governments are not always right; Governments do not always make moral decisions; Governments do not always act in line with the wishes of the population, but through the democratic process, millions of people can effect change. This Bill ignores that lesson. It shuts down the freedom of people to exercise a key democratic right. It is just another example of this Government’s anti-democratic crackdown, with restrictions on the right to vote, the right to protest and the right to strike.
Labour’s reasoned amendment, which declines to give the Bill a Second Reading and which I will be supporting, makes the case clearly about the many deep flaws in the Bill, as did the shadow Secretary of State in her response. In summary, the Bill is a huge attack on the concept of ethical investment and procurement by preventing public bodies from being influenced by “political or moral disapproval” of the actions of any foreign state. The Government claim that boycott and divestment will still be possible, but just not where it
“relates specifically or mainly to a particular foreign territory”.
That simply does not wash.
Almost all cases of companies engaging in human, labour or environmental abuses have a territorial element. If we are talking about divesting in companies that cut down the rainforest, for example, that activity will obviously take place in areas with rainforests, and certain countries would be targeted by campaigns. This Bill even bans public bodies from saying they would support such boycotts were it legal to do so. It is a gagging Bill that breaches freedom of speech and would prevent a local councillor in hustings debates or other public forums from giving their political view.
This Bill also has chilling elements in how it will be enforced, including potentially huge fines and far-reaching information compliance notices. The aim is clear: to put so much fear into public bodies of ending up in court that they do not just act within the law, but go beyond it in an effort to reduce that risk. As legal advice provided to the Labour party makes clear, this Bill would be likely to place the UK
“in breach of international law obligations”
and
“effectively equates the Occupied Palestinian Territories with Israel itself and is very difficult to reconcile with the long-standing position of the United Kingdom which supports a ‘two-state solution’ based on ‘1967 lines’ in which the security and right to self-determination of both Israelis and Palestinians are protected.”
I am afraid that I do not have any faith in the exemptions listed in the Bill at schedule 3. Just as apartheid was legal in South Africa, much environmental destruction takes place entirely legally. The very fact that something is illegal is often the rationale for a boycott and divestments campaign in the first place. Many people in the discussion today and around this Bill have mentioned boycotts—not just those relating to illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, where we have seen terrible scenes today in Jenin, but arms boycotts against Saudi Arabia over its war crimes in Yemen, boycotts in Colombia over its past treatment of trade unionists, and commercial boycotts of goods relating to the treatment of the Uyghurs in China or the Rohingya in Myanmar. It is not for us to decide which countries people are allowed to boycott—that is a huge curtailment of basic freedom. We need to maintain the democratic rights of people to challenge Government policy through boycotts and divestment, if that is their wish.
To conclude, the Bill has faced widespread civil society opposition, including from the Quakers and the Methodists, the Muslim Association of Britain, Friends of the Earth, the Union of Jewish Students, the TUC, Unite the union, Unison and the directors of 14 Israeli civil society and human rights organisations, as well as Human Rights Watch, Liberty and Amnesty, whose own legal ruling suggests that the Bill would be illegal. Not all those groups support boycotts, but they do support the right for people to boycott. That is what we are voting on today. We cannot allow the Government to scrap this cherished democratic right.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Reference has been made to Bob Kerslake consistently throughout today. Bob and I were friends. I go back longer than most, because I go back to 1981, when I was a young man and a GLC councillor and Bob was a young man and a GLC officer. I fully concur with all the tributes that have been paid, but I also want to say that he was a good man. He was a very good person and a good friend, and we will miss him.
Let me come on to this debate. I do not want to repeat some of the arguments, but I want to get on record for my constituents why I am voting the way I am this evening. I will vote in solidarity with the amendment, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on her speech, but I will also be voting against the Bill, because I cannot do anything else.
The debate has largely focused on the specific BDS movement and Israel. Just to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), I want to talk about the right to boycott, to disinvest and to sanction as an issue. At the weekend I drafted an article, because I wanted to get clear in my own mind the whole issue around boycotts and the past history of the boycott, disinvestment and sanctions movement. To be frank, virtually all of my life I have been involved in some boycott, disinvestment or sanctions campaign, so it was almost like a flashback. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), I was outside the South African embassy when the City of London anti-apartheid group was on a 24-hour permanent picket.
John McDonnell
He was arrested; I was not. I was there on Christmas day simply singing carols.
John McDonnell
I got off lightly. All we were singing for was the release of Nelson Mandela.
For the other one, I plead guilty. I was one of the organisers of the demonstrations over a decade ago against the royal visit of the Saudi leaders. We were calling for no public contracts to be awarded to companies operating in Saudi Arabia, because at that time they were beheading gay people for being gay. That was later focused on military support from this country for the Saudi attacks on Yemen. The list of BDS campaigns that I have supported goes on and on. I campaigned against the Bahraini regime and its ongoing brutal repression of the country’s democratic movement, and the continued imprisonment of opposition political leaders. We have met some of them over the years, and they are still inside.
I have campaigned against the Sri Lankan Administration owing to their genocidal attack on the Tamils, with their continued abuse of human rights, their use of torture, the disappearances, and the colonisations of Tamil homelands. Again, I have lost constituents who have been disappeared when they have gone out there. I campaigned for sanctions against the military junta in Myanmar to halt the attacks on the Rohingyas and to demand the freedom of Aung San Suu Kyi.
Yes, I have supported the boycott of goods coming from the Palestinian territories occupied illegally by Israel. The campaign in my constituency was undertaken by young people when the bombings in Gaza were killing young people there. In solidarity, young people in my constituency went round the local shops asking them to check where their goods were coming from and urging them not to sell goods from the occupied territories.
There has been some reference to BDS campaigns being associated with antisemitism. That is not what I have witnessed in my constituency, but if there is evidence that individuals associated with these campaigns are antisemitic, we already have laws to deal with that, and I believe that the full force of the law against racist behaviour should therefore be deployed.
More recently, I have called for sanctions against the Chinese Government for the barbaric treatment of the Uyghurs, and also because they have imprisoned a group of my Unite trade union friends who worked with me on the British Airways campaigns. All they were demanding was adherence to democracy by the Chinese, and they have been inside for two and a half years, without any form of access to their families in many instances.
The common factor in all those campaigns is that they would not have been supported by Government policy. Therefore, they would have been rendered illegal in their demand for action by public authorities to boycott, disinvest and sanction. I agree with the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) that there needs to be clarity about who is making foreign policy and what is being referred to, because actually the Bill makes the Secretary of State ex cathedra—infallible—and puts at his whim decisions about what is right and what is wrong across the globe, when Governments in this country have consistently got it significantly wrong. They have certainly not backed such campaigns and would have outlawed them overall.
All those campaigns have focused on pressing for action from Government, local councils, pension funds, private companies and investors. It is interesting that a few hon. Members have mentioned the focus on the local government pension fund. I declare an interest as a member of the local government pension fund, and I think it is up to members of the fund to determine its investment policies. I must say, as a constituency MP, that the campaigns have reflected the diversity of my constituency. There is not a campaign that has not involved a constituent or group of constituents or has not been asked for by my constituents. It is a matter of standing in solidarity.
The advice of every human rights lawyer I have spoken to so far, and all the briefings from human rights groups and trade unionists, have all made it clear that that range of activities will be outlawed and it will be made illegal for decision makers even to talk about the strategy. That is why I oppose the Bill. I am voting against it because we have heard today, right across the House, that not a single clause has stood up to scrutiny. Therefore, I do not believe it can be amended; it is fundamentally flawed and should be defeated.
Let me make one final point, as an aside. We should change the Standing Orders or look at “Erskine May”, because it would have been useful if the Secretary of State coming here to present the Bill had actually read it or addressed the same Bill that we are addressing in this debate. All we saw today was a diatribe of the lowest politics we have seen for a long time, which divides our community unnecessarily and, to be frank, appallingly.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Let me be absolutely clear that the Bill before this House, which should be rejected, is not just bad and unworkable but fundamentally flawed and dangerous. Hon. Members across the House have rightly stated that it does not just prevent public bodies such as local councils involving themselves in foreign policy—as the Government innocently declare—but meddles in the autonomy of local government pension schemes to make the best investment decisions, and swings a wrecking ball through the UK’s obligation to respect international law and countless United Nations resolutions.
The Bill undermines the ability of public bodies and civic society to divest from those who are harming our environment and driving climate change. It provides the Government with unprecedented and deeply alarming powers of enforcement that curtail freedom of expression and democracy by gagging public bodies that have the audacity to speak and act on their conscience. It forces public bodies and civic society to kneel, against their own moral convictions, to the Secretary of State’s foreign policy.
Most alarmingly, by preventing public bodies from adopting positions that deviate from this Government’s foreign policy of turning a blind eye to persecution, oppression and injustice in other countries, the Bill quashes the ability of those individuals, public bodies and members of civic society with any sense of humanity to take a stand against human rights abuses, at a time of rapid increase in those abuses right across the world.
Each of those reasons alone is enough to bin the Bill but, taken together, they make it not only one of the most far-reaching and dangerous pieces of legislation this Government have ever sought to make law, but one of the most repressive. That is why it must be struck down today.
As pointed out by hon. Members across the House, the Bill directly contradicts decades of established UK foreign policy on illegal Israeli settlements built on occupied land. It is astounding that it has to be repeated in this Chamber time and again that settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal under international law. Why does the Bill not recognise that international position?
Instead of introducing legislation to Parliament that provides cover to the Netanyahu Government’s illegal annexation of Palestinian territory, Ministers must decide whether they agree with the established position of the rest of the international community that the settlements and the Israeli Government’s repeated disregard for international law are illegal. As hon. Members have stated, the Bill as it currently stands is in direct contravention of not just international law but United Nations resolutions.
Many of us fear the anti-democratic precedent the Bill will set. Effectively, if a human rights campaign does not enjoy the support of the Government, it will be criminalised for attempting to bring abuses to light. The Uyghurs in Xinjiang, the Rohingya in Burma, the Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Kashmiris in Indian-occupied Kashmir—members of those communities, many of whom are resident in my constituency, have now had their fear doubled. Not only are they witnessing numerous human rights abuses in their countries of origin, they are now being silenced here, too. Indeed, until just recently the UK Government refused to approve sanctions against the Burmese military despite the horrific genocidal campaign it waged against the Rohingya, with Ministers declaring that they did not want to unbalance what existed of Burma’s democratic Government. Instead, it was left to other organisations and groups to lead the resistance against a genocide taking place while the UK Government looked on. The Government are in a better place on that issue today, but we are still left with the question of what happens if there is a return to the same form of democratic Government in Burma that existed before and which allowed the Rohingya genocide to take place. It is clear that Ministers will lift sanctions and force local authorities to do the same through the Bill, leaving the perpetrators of genocide able to escape justice and accountability for their grave crimes against humanity.
The impact the Bill will have on human rights in Indian-occupied Kashmir, where Kashmiris continue to face persecution, oppression and injustice is even more alarming, because it is in this region that UK foreign policy under this Tory Government is not only most unreliable but most spineless. Even as the Indian Government blatantly engage in violent, physical and psychological suppression of any resistance to the military occupation, however peaceful it may be, and seek to deter further opposition to their brutal rule by making an example of campaigners such as Yasin Malik, whose execution Indian prosecutors are now seeking, all the UK Government remain focused on is securing a trade deal with the right-wing Modi Government before the next general election. They could not even bring themselves to object to and boycott, as other countries did, the shameful decision to hold the G20 culture working group summit last month in Srinagar. In the absence of the UK Government stepping up to fulfil their historic, moral and international obligations to the region, it is once again left to local councils and public bodies to do what they can to protect human rights in Indian-occupied Kashmir by refusing to engage with those whose hands are stained with the blood of Kashmiris. Yet under the Bill the Government will put a stop to that and force public bodies to be party to human rights abuses because they think it is in the UK’s best foreign policy interests.
This rotten, unworkable and dangerous Bill is an alarming overreach of Government powers that breaks the UK’s international obligations and undermines efforts to protect our environment and fight climate change. It protects human rights abusers in countless nations and gags democratically elected local representatives. We cannot pick and choose which human rights abuses to act on and which to turn a blind eye to. Let me be clear: human rights are a universal obligation and a universal right. It is time the UK Government accepted that. I will therefore be standing up, as I always have done, for democracy, for our environment and for human rights by voting for today’s amendment that will reject the Bill.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
On first reading the Bill, memories of my childhood came flooding back, when my family and I were very heavily involved in the South Africa anti-apartheid movement in Wales. That campaign deployed a range of campaign methods, including boycott, divestment and sanctions, and lobbying local councils to divest and use sanctions against South Africa. We campaigned and succeeded in stopping a local choir from touring South Africa, as well as boycotting goods. That was some of my formative political campaigning. It was legitimate, proportionate and all about challenging racism. It informs me on why I must oppose the Bill in its entirety.
This Bill is the latest example of the shrinking space for freedom of expression in the UK, following the passage of the Elections Act 2022, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023, and the continued progress of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill. Today’s Bill is an attack on democracy and rides roughshod over democratically elected representatives at a local, regional and devolved level. It is the epitome of cancel culture that the right-wing culture warriors on the Conservative Benches complain about so bitterly. It really does, as others have said, contain a direct threat to freedom of speech by barring public authorities from taking action and, indeed, from even making statements of policy.
The Bill will assist the suppression of campaigns for justice and accountability across the globe on issues as wide ranging as pollution, the environment, exploitation of children and women, and fossil fuel divestment—the list goes on. I and others who have spoken out against this Bill are not alone in opposing it. A wide range of human rights organisations, lawyers, trade unions, charities, non-governmental organisations, faith groups, climate justice groups and cultural organisations share our concerns. And all of those would rightly reject the use of boycott tactics being used to stoke racism or antisemitism.
The Bill, as has been said, undermines elected local councils and regional Mayors by not allowing them to make decisions that they have been democratically elected to make. It also clearly and definitely undermines the devolved settlement. What consultation has been carried out with the Welsh Government and the other devolved nations? How will the Bill impact on the devolved nations’ procurement policies, which are currently being pursued and are ethical and have human rights considerations at their heart?
It has already been highlighted how this Bill, while giving the Government broad-brush powers to prevent criticism of any state Government, uniquely privileges Israel. That is despite its repeated and escalating human rights abuses in the west bank and Gaza, and, as we are witnessing today, the horrific and heartbreaking events in Jenin. Despite assertions that foreign policy is unchanged, for the first time a piece of British legislation will require Israel and the territories it illegally occupies to be treated in the same way, departing from decades of international consensus on the illegality of settlements.
There is a proud record of the use of boycotts in progressive struggles—from the sugar boycotts of slavery abolitionists in the 18th and 19th centuries, to the anti-apartheid boycotts of South Africa, divestment from fossil fuel companies and action against the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Boycotts have been used legitimately, proportionately and often successfully to peacefully put political, economic or cultural pressure on a regime, institution or company to force it to change abusive, discriminatory or illegal policies. They have historically been anti-racist campaigns, and I believe that they must and will continue in the future.
I want to finish with a quote from Nelson Mandela, who came to Cardiff in 1998:
“When the call for international isolation of the forces of apartheid went out to the world, the people of Wales responded magnificently. The knowledge that local authorities all over Wales were banning apartheid products from canteens and schools…was a great inspiration to us in our struggle.”
I believe that he too would have said that those opposing this Bill in its entirety are on the right side of history. That is why I support the Labour Front-Bench position to decline a Second Reading, and as a matter of conscience I must oppose the Bill in its entirety. Diolch yn fawr.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It has been a joy to hear the different opinions expressed in the Chamber today, both from those in favour of the Bill and from those against it. I have to say to my good friends, as I call them, sitting near me in the Chamber that my opinion differs from theirs, but that will not be a big surprise to them.
I am a well-known friend of Israel, and I make no apology for registering my interest and my support. Having said that, I know that it will—again—come as no surprise to any Member that I support the Bill, and, indeed, I said as much to the Secretary of State in an intervention earlier. The anti-Israel sentiment that flourishes in the absence of legislation must be addressed. I know that some Members who are present believe that the principle of boycotting has been used effectively for years, recalling the boycott of German goods, and I know of many a person who has boycotted a company in opposition to a decision or policy in that company. However, it is not the job of universities or other Government-funded bodies to make the decision to boycott for a political reason without an outright decision in this place, which is why the Bill is before us tonight. While some may also believe that only a principle is being debated today, the fact is that there is an active boycott against Israel in some political circles, and it does have an effect.
Let me give some examples from Northern Ireland. In 2014, the Sinn Féin mayor of what was then Newry and Mourne Council wrote to shopkeepers in the council district requiring them to inform him about all the Israeli goods that they stocked. In his capacity as mayor, he told local businesses in Newry that unless they immediately withdrew Israeli goods from sale, they were giving
“financial support, succour and legitimacy”
to “apartheid” and racism. Well, no, they were not. Those receiving the letter from the mayor—local shopkeepers and business people—understandably felt targeted, and some said that the letter struck them as deeply sinister, intimidating and extremely divisive.
This boycott is clearly racially motivated, which is underlined by debates taking place on the Israel issue. In a Belfast City Council debate on Israel in 2019, Israel was presented by nationalist and Marxist councillors as a unique evil in the world, requiring unique measures to be taken against it. People Before Profit councillors referred to Israel’s establishment and existence as a racist endeavour. Well, no, it is not, but they said that it was. The reality of any conflict in the middle east was denied; it was only their perceived Jewish oppression of Arabs. Concerns expressed about growing antisemitism were shamelessly deflected and ridiculed; it was just a deliberate tactic to silence criticism of Israel. It was suggested by some councillors that only Jews who held anti-Zionist positions deserved the council’s solidarity, a view that is perpetuated by the boycott of Israeli goods on a global scale in which this nation has been a silent partner for so long. That is why the Bill is so important.
Let me be clear: Israel’s existence and survival are vital to many in our Jewish community as a matter of their core identity, religious faith, family connections and sense of physical safety and security. Criticism of an Israeli Government or policy is one thing; demonisation of Israel as a unique evil, along with demands for the Jewish state’s elimination from the face of the earth, is quite another. Demonisation, boycotts and expulsions directed against the world’s only Jewish state do not sit well with me or with my colleagues, and, indeed, should not sit well with any member of this House. Local authorities in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, should be working hard to support diversity and good relations, not isolating and undermining one of our smallest and much-cherished communities.
Recently, a media outlet in Northern Ireland published a letter from a self-styled interfaith group identifying the leadership of Ireland’s tiny Jewish community with genocide and apartheid in the middle east. Well, no, they do not do that. The letter called on the 80 Jews in Belfast to support their “moderate” aim of bringing down the Zionist regime. To put it starkly, this is where the so-called BDS campaign will lead if it is never properly called out and challenged: it will lead to the targeting and isolation of not just the Jewish state, but those of us—and I am one—who consider ourselves friends of Israel, including many members of our Jewish community.
Let me give some more examples in the last couple of minutes available to me. Family businesses in Northern Ireland, such as Wilson’s Country Ltd, were subjected to a vicious attack on social media because they stocked Israeli new potatoes. An Israeli-owned stall at CastleCourt in Belfast was regularly physically attacked, and its staff intimidated. Some of these attacks were so serious that they led to custodial sentences. The stall was forced to close and has never returned.
Staff at the Linen Hall library in Belfast complained of online bullying after it hosted an event celebrating the centenary of Chaim Herzog’s birth in Belfast. Library staff were harangued.
During the conflict in the middle east, Belfast’s synagogue had its windows smashed and the community’s rabbi received threats and needed escorts to and from the synagogue. The community has frequently been targeted by online abuse.
A County Tyrone sports personality with an online following tweeted, “If you’re lucky enough to know a Jew, punch him in the face.” The PSNI is investigating. Pubgoers in the Bogside were recorded by an undercover Israeli reporter telling him, “Jews are the scum of the earth. Hitler didn’t kill enough of them.” The PSNI is investigating.
There were calls to cancel a friendly football match between Northern Ireland and Israel. The Israeli national team is more diverse than any other team in the world, because it includes Jews, Muslims and Christians. Again, the line of abuse is incredible.
My last example is from 2016, when Derry City and Strabane District Council claimed to be the first local authority in Northern Ireland to pass a motion boycotting Israeli goods. In 2018, the same council voted that to have a Friends of Israel representative speak to the council to put their side of the case would be a disgrace to the city. It did not want to hear the other side of the argument. The voice of freedom and free speech was not heard.
I will not be siding with the threat of expulsions, boycotts and isolation. I therefore welcome this Bill, which will prevent our local authorities from being abused in this extreme and divisive manner. We in Northern Ireland have seen more of that than most.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to close this challenging but important debate on behalf of the Opposition. The debate has covered Britain’s place in the world, freedom of speech, human rights, genocide and a whole range of other important topics.
At the heart of the debate lies a central question: does the Bill balance legitimate, strongly held and well-meant desires to challenge behaviours overseas on principled grounds against important protections for particular nations or regions in the face of disproportionate treatment? I am afraid the answer is no.
We believe there should be legislation to frame boycott and divestment-type activities—legislation that allows communities to decide where their money goes—in response to human rights or genocide concern, while ensuring such decisions are made equitably and consistently so that the world’s only Jewish state, for example, is not singled out and targeted. This is consistent with our long-held stance against the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel.
Colleagues can have confidence that we believe in such framing legislation, because the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), and I tabled such amendments to the Procurement Bill in Committee, some months ago, and on Report. The amendments were rejected by the Government, but the Bill tabled in their stead, the Bill before us, is considerably worse than the option we offered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) called the Bill a “dog’s dinner.” He is generally not a man to disappoint, but his sentiment was one of disappointment, which was echoed in the remarkable contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who spoke of the frustration of those, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, who want to see legislation that the House can unite behind. We do not have that currently.
There has been a range of other excellent contributions. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), referenced clause 3(7), as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and the hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond). This subsection breaks the distinction between the state of Israel and the occupied territories, which is a significant change in Government policy, and it asks significant questions about our compliance with UN resolutions. The Minister must account for that change of policy and assuage some of those concerns in her summing up.
The right hon. Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Sir Simon Clarke) and for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) said that foreign policy matters of this nature are not for local decision makers. Well, we do not think that is right. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) made a very strong argument about how it has worked and been effective in his community in the past. In a bolder argument, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) rightly said that it is our communities’ money. I, like many colleagues, am a member of the local government pension scheme—that is our money; and I am a council tax payer—that is our money. It is not unreasonable that we might want to have a say in how it is spent.
Nadia Whittome
This Bill is anti-democratic and anti-human rights. It frustrates peace efforts in the middle east and it is an obstacle to social justice everywhere. As such, it has been condemned by a huge range of civil society organisations, including trade unions, charities and faith organisations. Does my hon. Friend agree with them and with me that for those reasons the Bill must not receive a Second Reading?
Alex Norris
Yes, I think that what has been striking is that colleagues who come at this from very different places and parties have reached that conclusion of the inadequacy of this legislation. I hope the Government will reflect on that. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) asked what our alternative was. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) made a powerful contribution, but I slightly challenge his suggestion that we were saying that we should rip this up in an unspecified way. That is not the point we are making. We are saying that we tabled an amendment to the Procurement Bill that we think is better. If the Government think it is technically inadequate, we would be happy to work with them to improve it. What we do know is that it is much better than what is before us today.
My hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) made important points about what this Bill does to the devolved regional and national settlements—it challenges and presses them greatly. The right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) and the hon. Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made powerful anti-BDS cases. I hope the position that my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and I have taken on that assuages some concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford is my friend and we should always be honest with our friends, so let me say that he has done peerless work in this place on tackling the persecution of Christians abroad and he should have real concerns about how this legislation would fetter such activities in the future.
I will cover some more of the contributions as I get through the rest of my points, but certain concerns must be addressed by the Minister in her closing remarks. First, which of the two possible readings of clause 1 do the Government intend? Does the “territorial consideration” provision mean that not wishing to procure from Xinjiang is unacceptable but that not wishing to procure from the entire nation of China would be acceptable? Or does it mean that all actions of all foreign Governments are beyond the scope of local decision makers? How, at this stage, can it be satisfactory that there is ambiguity? As we have heard, this is legislation that will head straight to the courts. Secondly, to accept clause 3 is to exalt the Secretary of State ahead of any other public representative, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said. It is to set aside the mandates of the Mayor of the West Midlands, the Mayor of Greater Manchester or of the leaders of councils in favour of the Secretary of State. It is to give that person, whoever they may be, sole arbitration of human rights abuses, of genocide. That should give all of us pause, but it is worsened by clause 4, the gagging clause, which my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), for Leeds East (Richard Burgon)—
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
We heard a powerful and compelling contribution from my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking, about pernicious political thinking behind this Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that that has happened multiple times? We are talking about a smackdown on democracy. We had the so-called “gagging Bill”, which was about gagging charities and became the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014; in 2016, we had the wrapping up of trade unions in even more red tape; and, recently, we have had more attacks on trade unions and the right to protest. Are the Government not crushing dissent on the part of any organisation or body that wants to challenge them?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend almost reads to the end of my paragraph, so I will address that point presently. The point on gagging clauses was also made by my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds East and for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), and the hon. Members for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). The Bill means that not only does the judgment of the Secretary of State supersede any and all local leaders, but the Government seek to ensure that those leaders are not even allowed to talk about their desire to challenge human rights abuses or not to consume settlement goods. The Government are taking away not only the right to act, but the ability to speak. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) says, that is consistent with a legislative programme designed to whittle away at the civic space, with the Trade Union Act 2016, the 2014 Act, the Public Order Act 2023 and more. What we have in front of us is an unacceptable fetter on free expression.
Separately, but no less importantly, the Bill will, as the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) said, have consequences for billions of pounds in local government pension funds. Any hard deadline that is imposed on them to change their operations in accordance with new law could be deeply destabilising, and the Minister ought to talk about how much she has looked into that impact. We know that at the moment a pension fund makes a divestment decision on a financial ground that relates to territories named in the Bill, that decision will be challenged in the court as a moral judgment. That will bind up our pension funds in court case after court case.
Let me turn to an issue that has had little airing in the debate so far and will have a lot more to run. Through clause 7, the Bill permits extraordinary powers to compel information—powers that demolish long-held legal privileges. It is not proportionate to hand to the Secretary of State even stronger powers to compel information from public bodies than the security services have. Surely the Government see the unsustainability of that position. As detailed by Labour and other colleagues, these are weighty concerns that make the Bill unacceptable in its current form.
But there is an alternative, as covered in our reasoned amendment. Our country has a proud history in the development of modern international humanitarian law, from the ashes of world war two to the creation of the United Nations and the role that we continue to play on the world stage. We have always defended the fundamental and inalienable rights of all human beings. It is vital that procurement decisions made in respect of such rights are then applied across the board to prevent unethical actions against specific states and to ensure that common actions have the greatest impact. That could be readily achieved by requiring public bodies to produce a document that sets out their policy on procurement and human rights, and for that to be developed in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State. That would ensure consistency in how contracting authorities decide on such matters.
What would that suggestion mean in practice? The practical effect would be to make it clear and unambiguous that if a public body does not wish to procure goods from Russia because of President Putin’s abhorrent human rights abuses in Ukraine, the law will be on its side. If that same body does not wish to procure services from Xinjiang because of the appalling treatment of Uyghur Muslims, the law will be on its side. But if a public body acts only against a particular state—let us say the world’s only Jewish state—while turning a blind eye to human rights abuses elsewhere, such actions would be illegal. We offer this workable solution to the Government and I hope the Minister picks it up. If colleagues do not hear that in the Minister’s response, I encourage them to vote in favour of the reasoned amendment tabled in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
I thank Members from throughout the House for their impassioned and heartfelt contributions. Let me remind the House why we have introduced this legislation: we believe that we should have one foreign policy, and we also believe that BDS campaigns risk undermining community cohesion. We believe that public bodies should not be wasting time and money on pursuing their own foreign policy agendas and should instead focus on providing vital public services and delivering value for money for the taxpayer in their procurement and investment decisions.
Let me also clarify certain misapprehensions that certain Members have about the Bill. First, the Bill applies only to public authorities. It does not apply to private individuals or private companies, except if they are exercising public functions. It does not place restrictions on local councillors, except when they talk expressly on the behalf of their local authority. It does not prevent public authorities from making statements on foreign policy; it prevents them only from making a procurement or investment decision if it is motivated by moral or political disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct.
Many Members have mentioned clause 4. I reassure Members that clause 4 only prevents public authorities from making statements of intent to boycott or divest. It does not prevent public bodies from disagreeing with this legislation. The Bill does not ban ethical, religious or socially conscious funds, so, for instance, climate change funds can continue with the Bill unless there are issues that are country-specific.
A number of Members mentioned clause 3(7). I want to clarify the role of the clause. The Bill applies equally to all countries. Countries can be exempted from the ban by secondary legislation, which is what we are planning to do with Russia and Belarus—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. This has been a very good-natured and difficult debate. It has been held with disagreement, but courtesy across the House. People have now come into the Chamber who have not been here during the debate and it is most discourteous of them now to make so much noise that we cannot hear the Minister. That is bad behaviour and it is bad for the way in which we do things in here, especially on a day when we have had a very well-constructed and conducted debate.
Felicity Buchan
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Given the focus of the BDS campaign on Israel, we are simply saying in this clause that, for Israel to be exempted from the legislation, it will require primary legislation. I want to make that very clear. This policy does not affect our foreign policy position. We are not legislating for the UK’s foreign policy on Israel or on any other country in the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure a consistent approach to foreign policy across our public bodies, led by the UK Government. The Bill will not prevent the UK Government from imposing sanctions, or otherwise changing our foreign policy on any country in future.
I stress that none of the provisions in the Bill changes the UK’s position on Israeli settlements in the west bank and the Golan Heights. We are continuing to urge Israel not to take steps that move us away from our shared goals of peace and security. We support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states and a just, fair and realistic settlement for refugees.
Furthermore, our position on settlements is clear: they are illegal under international law; present an obstacle to peace; and threaten the physical viability of a two-state solution. Our position is reflected in our continued support for UN Security Council resolution 2334, with which the Bill is compliant.
Richard Graham
What the Minister says is not really what is reflected in the Bill because a specific exemption is given not just to Israel, in what should be a country-agnostic Bill—just like our manifesto commitment—but to two parts of Israel which we do not recognise as part of Israel under international law. Therefore, there is specifically an exemption for Israel. Does she agree—the Secretary of State said earlier that he would listen very carefully to suggested amendments—that this is something that needs to be worked on during the Bill Committee?
Felicity Buchan
UN Security Council resolution 2334 asks countries to differentiate between Israel and the occupied territories. We have done that in this clause; they are clearly separated out in different paragraphs. However, as the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, we are open to any discussions on the Bill and of course we want the best legislation here.
Felicity Buchan
I am very conscious that, in the interests of time, I only have a few minutes.
Alicia Kearns
My hon. Friend knows the incredibly high esteem I hold her in, but it just is not credible to keep repeating that this does not change how we treat the Golan Heights, which have been annexed, and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Foreign Office’s own legal advice states that the Bill could breach UNSC 2334. How am I being told repeatedly from the Dispatch Box that that is not the case, when that is what Government lawyers are saying themselves? We have a responsibility to uphold that resolution. We drafted this legislation and therefore we need to remove clause 3(7). We on these Back Benches have offered a landing platform to the Government: “Remove that clause. You can still do this.” But please do not repeat that this does not change anything when the Government lawyers themselves say it does.
Felicity Buchan
The Government’s view is that the Bill is compliant with UN Security Council resolution 2334.
I move on to the reasoned amendment, which rightly recognises the impact that boycotts and divestment campaigns can have on undermining community cohesion. The Government, however, are resisting the amendment on the basis that this legislation is a robust and proportionate means of stopping public bodies engaging in divisive campaigns and of fulfilling our 2019 manifesto commitment. The amendment refers specifically to the Uyghur Muslims. This Government are concerned about the issue of Uyghur forced labour in supply chains and are taking robust action. The exceptions in this Bill, alongside the exclusion grounds in the Procurement Bill, will keep suppliers involved in labour market misconduct, including human trafficking and modern slavery, no matter where they are in the world, out of public sector supply chains.
We have already discussed the point on the occupied territories and the Golan Heights. The amendment claims that this Bill limits freedom of speech, but that is not the case. Private individuals and bodies are not affected by the legislation. The right to freedom of speech is protected by article 10 of the European convention on human rights and the Government remain strongly committed to the UK’s long and proud tradition of freedom of speech.
The amendment also criticises the powers given to the Secretary of State to enforce this ban. Far from being the unprecedented powers claimed, they are modelled on existing powers of regulators such as the Office for Students and the Pensions Regulator. It would simply not be logical to impose a ban with a toothless enforcement regime.
This legislation delivers an important manifesto commitment. It will ensure that the UK has a consistent foreign policy approach and speaks with one voice internationally. I look forward to working with hon. Members throughout the Bill’s passage to deliver this important legislation and to continuing engagement on the issues that hon. Members have raised in the House today. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 5th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 September 2023 - (5 Sep 2023)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a couple of preliminary announcements. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Date Time Witness Tuesday 5 September Until no later than 9.55 am Local Government Association; Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Board Tuesday 5 September Until no later than 10.25 am Jewish Leadership Council; Board of Deputies of British Jews Tuesday 5 September Until no later than 10.55 am Councillor Bob Deering; Councillor James Jamieson Tuesday 5 September Until no later than 11.10 am Yachad Tuesday 5 September Until no later than 11.25 am Conservative Friends of Israel Tuesday 5 September Until no later than 2.30 pm Henry Jackson Society; Free Speech Union Tuesday 5 September Until no later than 2.45 pm World Uyghur Congress Tuesday 5 September Until no later than 3.00 pm Stephen Cragg KC Tuesday 5 September Until no later than 3.45 pm Francis Hoar; Professor Andrew Tettenborn; Professor Adam Tomkins Tuesday 5 September Until no later than 4.00 pm Balfour Project Tuesday 5 September Until no later than 4.30 pm UNISON; Scottish Trades Union Congress Thursday 7 September Until no later than 12.00 pm UK Lawyers for Israel; Steven Barrett Thursday 7 September Until no later than 12.30 pm Human Rights Watch; Friends of the Earth; Amnesty International Thursday 7 September Until no later than 12.45 pm Richard Hermer KC Thursday 7 September Until no later than 1.00 pm Melanie Phillips
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication, and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope we can take those matters formally, without debate.
I call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in her name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 5 September) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 5 September;
(b) at 11.30 am on Thursday 7 September;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2 pm on Tuesday 12 September;
(d) at 11:30am and 2 pm on Thursday 14 September;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 3; the Schedule; Clauses 4 to 17; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 14 September.—(Felicity Buchan.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Felicity Buchan.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Felicity Buchan.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and circulated to Members by email. We will now go into private session to discuss lines of questioning.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we hear from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
I have been to Israel on a trip paid for by the Conservative Friends of Israel, and I have a personal friendship with James Gurd, who will give evidence.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I declare my membership of Unison. I understand that an individual from Unison will give evidence at this session.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
As per my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I recently visited the occupied territories. The visit was paid for by Amnesty, who will join us later this week.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
I have been on a Conservative Friends of Israel trip, and James Gurd is a personal friend of mine.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
I have also been on a Conservative Friends of Israel trip, James Gurd is a friend of mine, and I used to work at the Jewish Leadership Council.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I am the parliamentary chair of Labour Friends of Israel. It is a non-pecuniary position, but I have also been to Israel with Labour Friends of Israel.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
As per my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I have been on a trip to Israel funded by Conservative Friends of Israel, and James Gurd is personally known to me.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
As per my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I have been on a trip to Israel funded by Conservative Friends of Israel, and James Gurd is personally known to me.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I have been to Israel on a visit funded by Labour Friends of Israel, but that was many years ago.
The Chair
I suppose, for the sake of completeness, that I should say I too have been on a trip to Israel with Labour Friends of Israel. However, as with Wayne David, that was many years ago.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I have also been on a trip funded by Conservative Friends of Israel, and I am also a friend of James Gurd.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I have been on a trip funded by Caabu, who are not giving evidence this morning, but I believe they are later on.
The Chair
Are there any more? I do not think there are any more Members!
We will first hear oral evidence from Jo Donnelly, who is the head of pensions at the Local Government Association, and Jon Richards, who is vice-chair of the Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Board. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and we must stick to the timings in the programme order the Committee has agreed. For this panel, we have until 9.55 am. To begin with, could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Jo Donnelly: I am Jo Donnelly, head of pensions at the Local Government Association.
Jon Richards: I am Jon Richards, vice-chair of the Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Board. In my day job, I am assistant general secretary for Unison, the public services union, although I am here specifically in my role as vice-chair.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
Q
There have been instances where local government pension schemes have come under pressure from civil society groups to divest from a particular country or territory. Is that something you are aware of? What kind of pressure have you faced? Do you think that the Bill will allow pension schemes to focus on delivering value for their members, rather than being distracted by political campaigns?
Jon Richards: Perhaps I can start. Thank you very much for the question and for inviting us here. There have been limited incidents where there have been local attempts to push forward BDS at local levels. As a pension scheme, we are clear that this is a scheme about delivering pensions. Its fiduciary duty is on members to deliver what members want and expect. If, at any time, there are questions raised, we remind people of the fiduciary duty, which is the most important thing that drives matters.
Unfortunately, in recent years, we have seen a number of attempts by Governments and even suggestions by both the main parties that we should invest in various things—private equity and all the rest. That interferes with our duty to deliver pensions, and that is what drives us. So there have been a few small attempts, but they have not taken place. We have also seen some global investment managers making separate decisions, which our pension funds do not have any control over. Those are outwith our ability—we cannot do anything about it if they make those decisions, because it is a global investment association.
What we are fundamentally saying is that our primary duty is our fiduciary duty. Unfortunately, this Bill will interfere in that, and that is what our concern is. It has the potential to increase our administrative costs, as we have to monitor whatever we are asked to do, but also potential legal challenges, which we expect, because we know this is a very difficult minefield. So we have real concerns about the administrative governance and financial costs that this will put on us.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Jon Richards: Our primary aim is our fiduciary duty to deliver pensions, and you will hear us say that probably 10 more times throughout this session.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Jo Donnelly: It is not a technical matter. My role here today is to assist you on the technical pension side of things.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Jo Donnelly: I think there are concerns around the clarity of a number of the provisions in the Bill and around how that will be dealt with in practice by pension committees, who are primarily making the decisions in the LGPS around investments and around strategy.
On the procurement side of things, I have taken some advice from my procurement colleagues in the LGA—obviously, I am not a procurement expert—and they have told me that, on the procurement side of things, there is nothing here that would cause any problems. The thing that is asked for is some more clarity around how the provisions on procurement in this Bill would interact with the Procurement Bill, which is currently going through Parliament as well. I think there is the potential for some confusion about how the provisions of each Bill interact with each other. So there is a request for some clarity and for clear communications to local authorities, and the LGA is happy to assist with that clarity on the procurement side of things.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Jo Donnelly: On the procurement side, yes.
Felicity Buchan
Absolutely, yes.
Jon Richards: But not on the pension side. That is the difference: with procurement and pensions, this Bill will have a different impact on the ability in procurement, as opposed to the fiduciary duty, as I will say many times, versus pensions trustees.
The Chair
Before the Minister proceeds, could I just remind her that we have a fairly tight timetable? Perhaps she could take that into account in future questioning.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Jo Donnelly: There are not that many options in the pensions space for the LGPS. The Pensions Regulator already has a role in relation to the administration and governance of the LGPS, but it does not have a role in the investment side of the LGPS—it does with other, private sector pension schemes, but not the LGPS. So the provisions in the Bill would expand TPR’s powers over some investment-type decisions in the LGPS. Our main concern around the regulator’s role is that they ensure that they limit their oversight of investment decisions to the provisions of the Bill and that they are properly resourced and trained to do that role, because it is quite different to what they are used to doing already.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Jon Richards: I do not think we do. I think we think that the level of regulation of the LGPS is also already very high. You will have seen that the Government have just introduced a whole series of additional pension consultations, which we have to do—which poor Jo has to deal with and spend a long time on. Again, we think there is significant regulation. We have a regulator and we have a clear fiduciary duty. Trustees have clear responsibilities, including training responsibilities. They have a clear understanding of what should be done. There is a need for improving governance, and we have been doing a lot of work on that, including training. We have also tried to issue guidance on the need to be clear that, if there are challenges, or attempts to move people away from the fiduciary duty, we need to drag people back to that, and they should not be diverted by some of the political games that are potentially out there.
Alex Norris
Q
Jon Richards: There is some wording in some bits of the Bill. For instance, it talks about being substantially “influenced”, a “reasonable observer” and “moral disapproval”. There is a series of phrases. These are very open, vague phrases. It is a lawyers’ charter. It really makes it difficult for us. We have already seen an increase in the number of legal challenges around this issue. You can see the pressures around a whole series of environmental issues. We face a whole series of pressures. Every new regulation, particularly if it is as openly worded as this, potentially makes it more difficult for us to deliver our fiduciary duty.
Jo Donnelly: Could I add something to that? The concerns about the judicial review and the court processes, in particular, are quite key for us, because it does appear that there could be dual running, effectively—enforcement action from the regulator alongside an interested party potentially bringing a judicial review or a High Court claim. The definition of an interested party is something that we would like to be clearer—for example, whether they need to be a scheme member or a local taxpayer. Some kind of clarity around the definition of who that could be would be helpful.
There is a real concern about the possibility of a local authority having to deal with a regulator investigation as well as a High Court claim. If a High Court claim was brought, that would be the first point of action. Normally, a High Court claim would be the end point; it would be the last resort. In this case, it could potentially be the first part of action, so the courts would be undertaking an investigation that we do not think would be helpful for them or the local authorities that are the subject of the action. That is a key concern for us as well.
Jon Richards: Can I add one thing, please, Chair? There is another issue about statements being made by particular people. If someone makes a statement, say, during a pensions committee meeting, and it is minuted, it is not clear whether the challenge is against the pensions committee, or the individual or whatever. There is some wording about the dangers of someone expressing themselves in a pensions committee meeting, and the potential impact of someone taking a challenge against the whole committee. Again, there is very loose and worrying wording for us.
The Chair
Q
Jo Donnelly: What we would like to see is a change in the Bill that would lead to the judicial review option or the High Court claim being possible only against the decision of the enforcement authority. Effectively, the decision that the regulator makes is what can be then challenged in court, rather than the decision—the alleged breach of the law—by the authority in the first place. Ideally, it would proceed as relatively normal, which is that a decision of an enforcement authority is what is challenged in law, rather than the original decision.
Chris Stephens
Q
Talking about green pensions, Lloyds Banking Group says:
“UK adults believe the biggest benefit of investing in a ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ pension is the improvement that it would make to the lives of future generations...followed by the fact it could help save the planet”.
Are there any parallels between ethical investments in the environment and ethical investments in international human rights?
Jon Richards: It is a very tricky area. It is a difficult tightrope that we walk as pensions trustees and pensions administrators. Let us just say that there are no pensioners on a dead planet, so you can see a clear long-term approach to understanding how you need to deal with potential investments, knowing the potential issues. I should admit that many years ago, I trained as a geologist and I was somewhat sceptical of climate change. I see humanity as a very small part of the overall 4.5 billion years that the Earth has been going. I looked at the different overall increases in temperature, and I think it is now quite difficult to argue against the scientific evidence in that context. That is my view; I understand others have not, but I have changed my view over the years.
Clearly, there is a logic behind environmental and a wish on the part of members to do that. I go back to what we said before: we are there to deliver on behalf of the members. That is our fundamental requirement. Clearly, we can see a desire among the membership to do something about ESG, so there is an understanding and a need to deal with that, because it deals with the wider investment and member issue. This is not the same type of political issue, and we wish to avoid, as much as possible as a pension scheme, getting tied into political issues. Unfortunately, this Bill does that to us.
Chris Stephens
Q
Jon Richards: Again, I do not want to get too dragged into this, because whenever you get involved in these, you always end up arguing about the extremes, as opposed to the thing. As I have said, there have been a very small number of attempts where this has happened. We are aware of one attempt where an external councillor sought to intervene. As I have said, there are some areas where investment managers have made decisions that have had an impact on the problem. Members have sought to do so, and some Unison branches and members have also made some attempts, but whenever they get through to the fiduciary duty, that is fundamentally where the decision is taken, and they have not been anywhere near meeting those requests at this time. They may do; people and members may change their minds. At the moment, we have not reached that threshold of decision making.
The Chair
Thank you. I have registered two other Members as signalling that they would like to ask questions. Have I missed anybody? No. In which case, I call Steve McCabe.
Steve McCabe
Q
Jo Donnelly: I think it is just a feature of how the law has to be drafted in order to exclude all pension schemes except the local government pension scheme, because the law applies to bodies under section 6 of the Human Rights Act, which includes education institutions such as universities, and obviously there is a pension scheme associated with universities. The law needs to exclude those pension schemes but specifically include the LGPS. I just read this as the best way that the drafters have found to make that clear, so I do not see it as a problem; it is just that the way in which the drafting has to work is sometimes a little clunky.
Steve McCabe
Q
Jon Richards: This is one for me, isn’t it? We would prefer it if the local government pension scheme was not subject to this Bill, as that interferes with our fiduciary duties.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
Jo Donnelly: It depends on the terminology. I would interpret “fund managers” as the asset managers: the investment professionals who manage the money in the pension scheme. They are tasked and given a mandate by the administering authority, by the pensions committee, which makes the decision as a collective. There is no individual decision making in the LGPS; it is all done as a collective by committee, which is one reason why there is some confusion for us about who the decision maker is, because that is never an individual in the LGPS.
In terms of fund managers as investment managers, they will continue to operate in line with the mandate that they are given by their client, which is the local authority or, in some cases, the investment pool, if it is one of the eight LGPS pools that exist in England and Wales. As long as those mandates do not breach the law, they will continue to operate as they do now. They make day-to-day commercial decisions about investments, taking into account all the relevant risk factors. If asset managers feel that there needs to be a change in an investment profile because of risk factors, they will make those decisions, normally without having to check that with the client—the authority that has invested the money.
Jon Richards: Can I just add that we have a series of oversight bodies that take those decisions? Obviously there is a pension fund committee in the council, which has the administerial authority. We also have separate pension boards which have half representatives of employers and half of employees, which again matches what we have at national level, where our board is six councillors and six member representatives. The chair is a Conservative councillor, the chair of the employers’ side is a Conservative councillor and I am a trade union official.
We have never had to vote at the national level. We have voting powers, but we have never used them because we have never needed to: we understand that we have a fiduciary duty. That is where we agree with Conservative councillors. We disagree very heavily on politics and all sorts of things, but when it comes to the committee we are pretty clear about what it is we need to do, and also about the need to improve governance to ensure that members’ representatives and members’ views are taken into account when people make those investment decisions.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
Jon Richards: I do not think so. I think there are wider problems with this legislation. There are ways of dealing with governance and how members can feed in and put their views forward at local and national level. The Bill has a series of other difficulties that will cause us significant administrative, governance and legal problems.
Jo Donnelly: I think there are some concerns about the exceptions and how they work. In the schedule, there are exceptions to permit considerations around environmental, social and governance factors, which are obviously now standard practice to consider when looking at investments. But there are some concerns about the wording of those provisions, whether they will allow things to continue to operate, and whether committees will be able to consider specific concerns brought by scheme members.
The Chair
I am afraid we have reached the end of the time allotted to the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses, who have been very clear and helpful in drawing our attention to some of the dilemmas and difficulties faced. I am sure when we come to deliberate on amendments and alterations to the Bill we will take very seriously the advice that has been given.
Examination of witnesses
Russell Langer and Daniel Sugarman gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Russell Langer, head of policy and research at the Jewish Leadership Council, and Daniel Sugarman, director of public affairs for the Board of Deputies of British Jews. For this session, we have until 10.25 am. Would the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Russell Langer: I am Russell Langer: I am the head of policy and research at the Jewish Leadership Council.
Daniel Sugarman: I am Daniel Sugarman: I am a director of public affairs at the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
Wayne David
Q
Russell Langer: I judge the legislation based on whether or not it adequately prohibits BDS in public bodies, and I believe it does; whether or not it covers the correct public bodies within its scope, and it does; and whether or not it has the appropriate enforcement powers to ensure that the Bill will have the intended effect, and it does. I did not draft the legislation—I saw the legislation at probably a similar time to you—but on those bases, it is something that I am very comfortable in supporting.
Daniel Sugarman: Similarly, we had no role in drafting the legislation, of course; we saw it at probably around the same time as many of you did. This is a policy area that we have been very interested in for quite a while now, and I think that the Bill as it stands addresses the concerns that we have, although of course if amendments are raised, we will watch them with interest, as will other people.
Wayne David
Q
Russell Langer: If we had amendments that we were proposing, we would have included them in our written submission, and I do not believe either organisation has. I look forward with interest to seeing amendments as they come forward, and we will consider them on their merits, but we are happy, as it stands, with the Bill.
Wayne David
Q
Daniel Sugarman: I think that we have to accept the circumstances as they currently are, and the circumstances currently are that there are hundreds of thousands of Jewish people living beyond what one might call the green line. There has been already a firm understanding among different parties to peace negotiations that there will have to be land swaps in terms of the future two-state solution that we hope and pray for. Given that that is the case, to penalise people who are living, essentially—there is a difference between hilltop settlements and towns, essentially, connected to Jerusalem where tens of thousands of people live. I think that the way things have worked up until now has led to everything being tarred with the same brush, and I am not sure that that is particularly helpful.
Russell Langer: If I can add this, I disagree with your assessment that the legislation paints it all in the same way. First, very clearly, Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan heights are listed separately in the Bill, and I am pretty sure that if you were to ask the Israeli Government, they would see that as them being listed separately. But more importantly, the UK Government have been clear that this does not change UK policy. UK policy on Israel and the settlements is something that is a reserved matter for the national Government and something that gets debated in this place on a regular basis. What we do not require is for that debate to happen in every public body around this country, especially when it is usually—it tends to be—the only foreign policy debate that happens in public bodies around the country. I think that is the really key—important—part here. To me, this is not a discussion about settlements. That is a legitimate conversation to happen in Parliament; we do not need to be having that conversation in every public body around this country.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Russell Langer: Sure. The boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign—BDS—against Israel is a pernicious campaign, which seeks to single out the world’s only Jewish state for unique treatment. As I just said in the previous answer, when we look at the picture in public bodies around this country when it comes to foreign policy discussions, Israel is the only country that is singled out in this way. That was something that was made clear in the House of Commons Library briefing, prepared ahead of Second Reading, as well. I therefore believe that the legislation is necessary to end the practice of Israel being singled out in that way by public bodies around the country.
On the links to antisemitism, the link between antisemitism here in the UK and the situation in Israel is clear—it is clear in the statistics, in the months with the highest levels of antisemitism on record, which all correspond to the months in which conflicts have happened in Israel. That link is clear.
When the Jewish community is most vulnerable in this country and when antisemitism is at its highest, we tend to see public bodies under intense pressure from campaign groups to get involved by boycotting Israel. That comes back to the point that I made about it being the only time that they are usually asked to get involved in such foreign policy. The legislation will therefore allow public bodies such as local authorities, higher education institutions and cultural organisations to focus on improving community cohesion at a time when it is at its most threatened. The legislation is helpful to that.
Daniel Sugarman: If I might add to that, on the links to antisemitism, there are a few points to consider, the first of which is the somewhat questionable double standards. People who take an extreme interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and call for a full boycott of Israel seem rarely, if ever, to call for boycotts of any other country. It appears to be just the world’s only Jewish state that gets that sort of treatment.
The history of boycotts against Jews is a painful one, linking directly back to Nazi Germany, and it is clear that at least for a significant percentage of the community, when we hear about boycotts against Israel, that is a link that is raised. We have also had cases, unfortunately, where people participating in BDS campaigns have gone beyond Israel. For example, in a supermarket, a bunch of BDS campaigners went in and started defacing products that they felt were Israeli-linked, but of course they went straight for the kosher food section, not appearing to distinguish. That sent a clear signal.
I will make two more quick points, if I may. First, polling suggests that more than 80% of British Jews see Israel as either central or important to their Jewish identity. There is a very strong link between the Jewish community and Israel. When Israel and Israel alone is targeted in such a manner, that really has a strong impact on the Jewish community.
The other thing to consider is that the co-founder of the BDS campaign has been very clear about what he sees as the end goal, which is not a two-state solution, but the destruction of Israel as a state and its replacement with a state in which Jews are a minority. Given that in the past 50 or 60 years we have seen exactly what has happened to every single other Jewish community in the Middle East that was a minority, I think that the Jewish community here and elsewhere is right to be profoundly concerned.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Russell Langer: On clause 4, as I said, with BDS in public bodies, that is something we have seen over the course of several years. Often, while the results have an impact on the Jewish community, that impact is not limited to the implementation of BDS; it is part of the febrile nature of the debate, bringing it into our public bodies. Once again, the specific point is that that tends to be the only foreign policy with such debate in our public bodies in this country. Therefore, I understand the purpose of the clause, and to that extent definitely see the need for something.
In terms of the enforcement powers, absolutely—this Bill would have little merit without having adequate enforcement powers. Without them, it would lean towards a situation that we have now, whereby it is up to individual campaigners to raise these issues through judicial review and so on. Therefore, one of the key parts of this Bill is having proper enforcement powers to ensure that it is enforced.
The Chair
Q
Russell Langer: Absolutely—I am tempted to give you that one-word answer. There is absolutely no issue here in the Bill in terms of criticising Israel. The UK should have robust foreign policy on all issues, including Israel, and I do not think that anything should get in the way of that. However, what we have seen is a problematic picture, whereby the only country that any public body seeks to wish to criticise tends to be the one Jewish state in the world, and that I have an issue with. Nevertheless, I am not getting in the way of anyone here criticising Israel should they wish to do so.
Chris Stephens
Q
Daniel Sugarman: First, I would say that we do not believe that the Bill prevents freedom of expression, in that any individual and any private organisation will still have the absolute right to adopt a BDS motion or to carry forward the idea of BDS. We are essentially concerned that public bodies, which receive public funding, are being used to promote a foreign policy agenda that is different from that of His Majesty’s Government. We find that extremely troubling and the idea that it is a freedom of speech issue is—I think for both of us, although I cannot speak for Russell—appears to be extremely misleading.
Russell Langer: Exactly. I will just add something to that. Neither of us would claim that the Jewish community is a homogenous community that will agree a single position on any piece of legislation, let alone this one, but we both sit here as representatives of national representative bodies, and this is the position that we have considered and come to.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
Russell Langer: I have heard this argument and it is really important that it gets a clear answer, which is that antisemitism is not a response to Government legislation. It is not a criticism of the Israeli Government; antisemitism is the hatred of Jews. And I am really cautious about any argument that this piece of legislation would increase antisemitism. I think that it is an argument that we really need to steer clear of.
Daniel Sugarman: I would add that, from our point of view, the reason why it is right that Israel is singled out here is because, as far as I am aware, Israel is the only country that is regularly targeted for such boycotts via public bodies. No other country is targeted in such a manner. Therefore, it seems correct that there is some acknowledgement of that and some way to ensure that it does not happen.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
Russell Langer: I think it will have a positive impact on communities here in the UK. Unfortunately, what we see here in the UK—it happens with other foreign issues, but it happens specifically with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—is that we see a foreign conflict affecting intercommunity relations here in the UK. Worst of all, we then see public bodies—it is a minority, but some public bodies—seeking to then get involved in that debate and make those tensions worse, when I think they should be getting involved to improve the situation. I completely agree with you, but I think I come to a different point.
Daniel Sugarman: It will certainly make things better for Jewish communities—particularly small Jewish communities—who have been in positions where they sometimes feel that, unless they vocally criticise Israel, as Jews, they will not get a hearing. I admit, I do not have a huge amount of sympathy for people who might feel that they no longer have the means to make such Jewish communities feel uncomfortable.
Steve McCabe
Q
Daniel Sugarman: That is an excellent point, but I think that, had the Government focused specifically on Israel, and not on anything else, we would have seen some of the same people who are raising questions in general—well-meaning questions as to why Israel is singled out specifically in the Bill—and I think that the questions as to why only Israel was being focused on would have been 1,000 times louder. I think it makes sense that the Government have widened the scope for this, while singling out Israel within the wider Bill.
Russell Langer: I would add that part of our reasoning to believe that public bodies should not be boycotting Israel is that it contravenes UK Government policy, and that it is a foreign-policy issue being taken up by public bodies. Therefore, I can understand the wider scope to tie that in to that national picture of public bodies not taking foreign-policy decisions contrary to national Government.
The Chair
Are there any further lines of questioning? We have time available if anybody wishes to pursue anything. In that case, although we did not take up a lot of your time, I think it gave members of the Committee an opportunity to air some of the points of principle as they presented, and to look at alternative points of view on. That has been really helpful, and, of course, you bring a perspective to this that is very focused on one specific community, but that is as it should be. We are very grateful for the light you have been able to shine on some of those difficult issues, which I know people are trying to cope with by being even-handed but also by operating on good, solid principles. Thank you very much indeed.
Russell Langer: Thank you very much for inviting us.
The Chair
Given that we are a little ahead of time, and one of the witnesses for the next session is not currently available, we will pause the proceedings.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Councillor Bob Deering, the executive member for resources and performance at Hertfordshire County Council, and Councillor James Jamieson, the immediate past chair of the Local Government Association, who joins us via Zoom. We have until 10.55 am for this session. Can the witnesses kindly introduce themselves, so that we have it on the record?
Councillor Deering: My name is Bob Deering. As you have just said, I am the cabinet member for resources and performance at Hertfordshire County Council, which essentially means money.
Councillor Jamieson: Good morning. I am James Jamieson. I am a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. As noted earlier, I was the chairman of the Local Government Association until July, when my four-year term expired. Previously, I have been the leader of Central Bedfordshire Council.
The Chair
Just before we get into the questions, I think Bob Blackman would like to make a declaration of interest.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Thank you, Chair; apologies for being late at the beginning. I want to put on record that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association; obviously, we have witnesses here from the LGA. I am also the secretary to the all-party parliamentary group on British Jews, and I chair the all-party Britain-Israel parliamentary group. I am an officer of Conservative Friends of Israel, and I have been on trips to Israel sponsored by the Conservative Friends of Israel. I have also been on trips to the west bank and on others sponsored by other groups.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Councillor Deering: I do not know whether it will disappoint you, but in Hertfordshire we have had very little agitation—if I can use the word—of this type. Ahead of me coming here today, we did the best that we could to check our records, and we think that there may have been some form of question or petition that may have come through in 2022 related to Israel. We then had something post the Ukrainian issue that related to Russia. We think that that is just about the limit of our experience in recent times, so maybe we do not have a lot of experience to draw on. We would say that that is a good thing, because in Hertfordshire we are trying to manage our finances in an objective and hopefully sensible way for the benefit of the residents of Hertfordshire, not for any particular lobby group, whichever it may be. My answer to your question is yes: what you are looking at here probably would be helpful.
If I may just add a rider, there is some crossover between what you are looking at here and procurement. I think we would be keen that no grey area emerges across those two areas of interest.
The Chair
Q
Councillor Jamieson: I would also reflect that my personal experience in Central Bedfordshire is that we have not had motions of this nature relating to countries. Interestingly, we have had, on occasion, motions that would not be covered by this Bill, but which I would say were of a broader political nature and did not focus on what local government should be doing, which is delivering for our residents locally. My own personal view is that that is what councils should be focused on. Foreign policy really should be a matter for Government.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Councillor Deering: That is quite a big question. I am conscious that you will be taking evidence from all sorts of people. I might provide you with a neutral answer, if I may. We can see why they are there. Again, I do not wish to be repetitious or boring, but really we simply try to run our finances as best we can. In principle, we do not want awkward issues to come up that make it difficult for us to run our finances in the way that we think is best for our residents.
Councillor Jamieson: I do think that it is important that pension funds—as is currently the regulation for pension funds—can take into account issues that would be of concern to their pension holders. That is right, and that is a carve-out, albeit it also has the carve-out—I cannot remember the exact wording— that effectively it must not have a significant financial impact. I think that is right. For instance, with things around the environment, people might have concerns when investing in certain companies. Local government has a public health duty and I could completely understand if certain councillors wanted to avoid investments in businesses that they deemed were harmful for public health. A classic example would potentially be the tobacco industry. I think it is important that we can still make those decisions.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Councillor Deering: I think we are. I think we would support it for the central reason, which is that this country’s foreign policy, it seems to us, should be made by Government and should therefore be a coherent, unified foreign policy, rather than being fragmented across goodness alone knows how many organisations across the country, thereby becoming disparate. So yes, we are supportive.
May I come back on something the previous witness has just said in relation to pensions? Our experience is that if we find that there is some degree of pressure, it is more likely to come in relation to pensions. Our pension fund is valued currently at about £6 billion, which is a lot of money. We have 115,000 members and 400 employers. We take our responsibilities for our pension extremely seriously and I have been on our pension committee for a number of years. We have from time to time had situations where people, exactly as has just been said, come along and say that we should not be investing in x or we should not be investing in y because. There is a degree of difficulty with that because we understand always where people are coming from, but clearly, in the pension world, we have a fiduciary duty to deliver—to put it loosely but broadly—the best pension we can for all the prospective beneficiaries of our pension scheme. That comes up from time to time.
At Hertfordshire, we have an extremely good pensions committee. It is cross-party, as you would expect, but it is not party political. The reason I have come back to this is because, of course, environmental, social and governance is an issue in all investment these days. All the advisers that advise us in relation to our pension investments have some facility to advise on ESG. It might be thought that that strays into that area—tobacco, coal or whatever it is—but ESG works its way through to value and you start to realise that, actually, it is an investment criterion because it affects the value of what you are investing. I thought I should just say that because that is probably our biggest experience in this area.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Councillor Jamieson: I am speaking personally here. This is not an LGA view, just to be clear. I think the principle of this legislation is absolutely fine and, in many ways, helpful because it enables people on a pension committee to be very clear that they cannot consider countries when looking at this. However, my caveat is that there are some details in the regulations that need clarifying and those are quite concerning. It is not the principle but some of the details and we just want to make sure that some of those are right.
Alex Norris
Q
We speak a lot in this Parliament about transferring power from here to local communities, namely our local councils. The Bill very much transfers power from our local councils to this place. How do colleagues in the local government family feel about that?
Councillor Jamieson: Thank you very much for your kind words. As I should have mentioned in my little statement a moment ago, I am very vexed—and was very vexed as chairman of the Local Government Association—by the underlying trend of giving powers to local government with one hand and taking them away with multiple hands. I can genuinely understand why it is being done, but I do not like the fact that it is another example of central Government just eating away at the freedoms and devolution of local government, but there are far more contentious areas than this one in which I would argue that the Government have taken back powers.
Councillor Deering: My view is very similar. I do not know that in Hertfordshire we feel particularly that this is a power grab from us; I think we understand the rationale of the Bill, or the proposal. If we had more experience of problems in the area, maybe we would feel differently, but I think we would say that we are fairly relaxed about this.
Alex Norris
Q
Councillor Deering: My answer is very similar. Again, it could be because our experience of problems arising is quite limited, but we are broadly relaxed about the point that you are making. We can see the overarching objective of the proposed legislation.
Councillor Jamieson: This was one of the areas of detail about which I had a concern, because I think it only right that in a committee meeting people should be free to express views. The key question is what the decision of that committee is. That is what should be held to account, rather than the views that are expressed and rightly debated in the meeting.
We have two concerns. One is about the freedom to express those views in an appropriate manner during the meeting. The second concern is that we publish minutes of meetings. If those minutes faithfully record what somebody has said, would that breach the rules on expression of views? Those are two details that need to be sorted out, because we do want debate in a meeting. People should be able to express their view; the point is that when they come to make a decision, it is the decision that should be held to account, not what people said in the meeting.
The Chair
Six members of the Committee have indicated that they want to ask a question, so I will initially confine them to one question each. I am sure that members of the Committee have enough intellectual flexibility to be able to get everything they want to find out into a single question.
Bob Blackman
Q
Councillor Jamieson: I think the key question is the one that I have just spoken about. I am not particularly aware of any decisions, but I am aware that there have been debates. The key point that I am worried about is that I do not want those debates to be caught out, because it is right to debate things.
Bob Blackman
Q
The Chair
I did say that I was not going to allow second questions, but can somebody give a quick answer?
Councillor Jamieson: I will have to come back to you on that, Bob. I do not have the details of the Leicester discussion.
Steve McCabe
Q
Councillor Deering: I think it is my turn to go first, isn’t it? Do I think it is fair? That is a very good question. I think ultimately it is the decision that Parliament will make on this on this Bill. As a broad matter of principle, I do not think it is inappropriate that if a standard is set and there is a failure to meet the standard, some consequence will follow, but it is for Parliament to determine quite what that standard will be and quite what the consequence will be. As a principle, I do not think we would have any difficulty with that. On the second part of your one question, I would not think that this issue would deter people from coming into public life in local government. That would be my personal view.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Q
Councillor Deering: Well, I do not quite go back 10 years in local government, so I cannot quite answer for that period. I became a county councillor in 2017, I think, but I have been involved in the finance and performance side more or less ever since day one. I would say that the answer to your question is: a bit. Not only is there slightly more of this discussion because of general issues and political issues, but also in part because all councils are under financial pressure and every now and again there is a view expressed by someone—from wherever they might be on the political spectrum—that, “There seems to be an awful lot of money in the pension fund, and can’t that somehow be used?” Obviously that is inappropriate. In our council, everybody understands that, but it is a frustration that is expressed from time to time. Coming back to your question, yes, there is a little bit more of what you asked about, but maybe that is because there are an increasing number of events in the world that might lead to the thought being ventilated.
Councillor Jamieson: The modern world—with the increase in social media, the ability for electronic petitions and so forth—has meant that councils are subject to more petitioning and more demand from groups of the public. It is easier to put these things on the agenda than it was in the past, so I think it is inevitable that we are seeing more of whatever it is that we are talking about compared with 10 years ago; in fact, I can go back 14 years, so compared with 14 years ago.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
Councillor Deering: Personally, I am a very big believer in freedom of speech, and just freedom. If I might make a huge point, it is one of the things that this country is pretty good at, actually. I am very strongly in favour of it and would not want to see it impinged, but we all need to find a way to work together and achieve objectives. I repeat that our institution is not particularly vexed about the issue that underlies your question; we can see it, but I do not know that we are vexed by it.
Councillor Jamieson: If I can come back to this—I am in danger of repeating myself—I do think it is important that there are some tweaks to the legislation. One is that writing the minutes of a meeting that reflect a view expressed in the meeting should not be a reason to be referred to the Pensions Regulator or for judicial review. Also, if the reference to a decision having been “influenced” was changed to “substantially influenced”, that would make life a lot easier.
I also have a big concern with judicial reviews. My biggest area of experience with judicial reviews is in the planning system, where they can be hugely expensive and time-consuming. I really do not like the fact that councils will be subject to judicial reviews, which will make vexatious JRs and so forth much easier. We are covered by the Pensions Regulator, and if the legislation were changed to say that it is the Pensions Regulator that makes the decision, and the Pensions Regulator could then be judicially reviewed if somebody felt it had not made its decision correctly, that would reduce the risk of vexatious JRs. That should also be linked to who can claim that they have been impacted. At the moment, pretty much anybody in the UK is in a household where there is a ratepayer; does that mean that anybody can mount a challenge just on the basis that they are potentially influenced or potentially a taxpayer?
The definition of who can mount a JR should be tightened, then, but ideally we should remove the ability to JR councils for the decisions. We should be monitored by the regulator and complaints should be made to the regulator, which should make that decision. If the regulator makes a decision and a member of the public is not happy with that decision, they should JR the regulator, not the council. I think that would make people feel a lot more comfortable about expressing their views and not having a vexatious JR or worrying about whether a minute in a meeting might contravene the rules or whatever.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
Q
Councillor Deering: If I may say so, I thought that Councillor Jamieson’s response to the previous question was very good, because the question went to freedom of speech but Councillor Jamieson talked about judicial review, and in effect you are talking about enforcement through judicial review.
I substantially endorse what Councillor Jamieson just said. From the practical point of view of a councillor—forgive me: no doubt some of you in the room have this experience, but perhaps some of you do not—JRs may very well not be vexatious but my goodness me they give rise to a huge amount of work. They involve huge cost exposures and they are very, very demanding on a council’s capacity. If there is to be a JR backdrop to this, it needs to be put together in a thoughtful and careful way.
Subject to that, of course, if you are creating a regime that requires application, there does need to be some enforcement mechanism. Yes, I agree with that.
Councillor Jamieson: There does need to be an enforcement mechanism, which is the whole point of the Pensions Regulator. That should have sufficient teeth. It covers a whole range of issues—not just this but other things—and in general it works reasonably well.
Chris Stephens
Q
“make it almost impossible for public bodies to use their procurement and investment policies to incentivise ethical business conduct that is human rights compliant”?
Councillor Deering: I did not quite catch the very first part of your question—
Chris Stephens
I can say it again.
Councillor Deering: It is okay; I think I got the gist of it. In a way, that goes perhaps not to the heart of the Bill but somewhere reasonably close to its heart, doesn’t it? In effect, it goes to the question of whether local authorities or public bodies should be campaigning bodies. There are some interesting questions there, aren’t there? Of course, in the case of local authorities, their funding is all taxpayer funding, so there needs to be some balance to make sure that taxpayers’ money is spent in an appropriate manner. It seems to me, essentially, that that is one of the things that your Committee will be considering when you consider the Bill.
Personally, I would come back to the objective of the Bill, and I would say, as I have already said in this session, that it seems to me and us that the objective of the Bill is understandable: in so far as the country has foreign policy, that policy should be made centrally, and it should not be fractured into all sorts of different variations across the country.
The Chair
Q
Councillor Jamieson: I think that, as with all these things, there are grey areas in this, but as a broad principle, national Government set foreign policy. I think that is appropriate and right. Local government provides services for its residents, and we want them to be the best that they possibly can be within the financial envelope, but we do have a wider responsibility, as Councillor Deering said earlier. ESG is a key part of some of our procurement and investment decisions, and procuring to support local businesses is also something that is really important. We need to be clear that those things are still allowed, but speaking personally, I would not support every local council having its own foreign policy. That would be inappropriate.
The Chair
We have a couple of minutes left in this session, if anybody has a question that they have not had the opportunity to ask. I call the Minister.
Felicity Buchan
Q
The Chair
Before I bring in the witnesses to answer that question, Bob Blackman has a very quick point.
Bob Blackman
It was a very quick point to Councillor Jamieson: could you clarify exactly what changes might be made to the Bill to clarify the regulations that you spoke about earlier?
The Chair
Thank you. Over to our witnesses.
Councillor Jamieson: First, I will write formally, Bob, so that there is no ambiguity on any of those changes, if that helps.
Minister, on the point about being able to speak freely, the question is, if someone is speaking in a debate and it is minuted, what does that mean? There needs to be clarity about what represents speaking as a councillor or speaking on behalf of a council. Minutes of a meeting are one area where, at the moment, it is ambiguous, so we need to be very clear that minutes of a meeting and opinions expressed in those minutes do not represent the views of the council; they are the views of the councillors, if that makes sense. That just needs clarifying.
On the couple of points I was making to you earlier, Bob, in order for a decision that has been made to be called into the Pensions Regulator, or whatever, it needs to have been substantially influenced, not just influenced. My third key point is that we should be regulated by the Pensions Regulator. You should not be able to JR a council on this matter. If you do not like the decision of the Pensions Regulator, you should JR the Pensions Regulator. That would save an awful lot of potentially vexatious JRs.
The Chair
Councillor Deering, is there anything that you briefly want to add?
Councillor Deering: I am sorry to embarrass Councillor Jamieson, but I think the points he has just made are very sound and sensible. Coming back to the question that led to that answer, yes, there is clearly a distinction between a council and councillors. Quite clearly, they are not the same thing.
The Chair
I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank both the witnesses, on behalf of the Committee, for steering an important path between freedom of speech and the responsibilities that pension funds have to pension fund holders past, present and future. It has been a really useful and informative session and I would like to thank you both very much for your contributions.
Councillor Deering: Thank you very much indeed.
Councillor Jamieson: Thank you.
Examination of witness
Hannah Weisfeld gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Hannah Weisfeld, director of Yachad. For this session we have until 11.10. Could the witness introduce herself, for the record?
Hannah Weisfeld: I am Hannah Weisfeld, the executive director of Yachad.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Hannah Weisfeld: I guess I should start by clarifying who we are and what we do. We are a British Jewish organisation that works within the mainstream of Anglo-Jewry to build support for a political resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
We do not support or advocate for the BDS movement, because we believe that putting pressure on one side does not necessarily bring about a resolution to the conflict. However, we are very clear that we support the right to non-violent protest. While we do not support or advocate for the BDS movement, we support the rights of individuals to adopt methods of non-violent resistance to Israeli Government policy—and in fact to the policy of any Government anywhere in the world. So, we would not advocate for the movement, but we would absolutely advocate for the right of people to express their opinions and to apply pressure in a non-violent way.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Hannah Weisfeld: Well, I know that one of the motivations for this piece of legislation has been around community cohesion and the idea that debating issues that are contentious at a local level creates community dissonance and disagreement. There is a reverse to that, which is that when you crack down on the ability of people to express their opinion and to express it in local democracies, you can do the exact opposite, which is that rather than bring people together, you can create real disharmony among communities. That has been mentioned already in the Committee this morning. There has been a tiny number of examples of there being what we would refer to as BDS motions at a local government level and in public bodies. I would not be overstating the reality if I said that if this legislation passes in its current form, there will be BDS motions in public bodies all across the country where people try to test this legislation because they are so frustrated that their right to express an opinion has been clamped down on. If the motivation here is to create community cohesion, there is a very real worry that this is going to do the exact opposite.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Felicity Buchan
I am sorry; I was just about to say, do you agree?
Hannah Weisfeld: I do not think we have evidence, and the Committee has not just heard that the people representing local government have been particularly distracted. To me, the Bill is not really about that issue; it is about creating what I think will become quite a nasty debate around Israel-Palestine, and I do not think that that is going to benefit the Jewish community particularly.
The Chair
This is a very short session and three people have signified that they want to ask questions. I will bring in Wayne David. Again, I ask Members to be concise in their questions and our witness to be equally concise in her answers.
Wayne David
Q
Hannah Weisfeld: Yes. This has been mentioned by colleagues, but there is obviously not a homogeneous opinion about anything inside the Jewish community, as there is not in any faith or minority community. I think it is important to mention, though, that Yachad is a member of the Board of Deputies, and there are a number of other organisations that are members of the Board of Deputies, or whose parent organisations are members of the Jewish Leadership Council, that have been very publicly opposed to this legislation.
I want to draw your attention particularly to the Union of Jewish Students, which is the main Jewish student body in the UK. It represents more than 9,000 students and more than 70 Jewish societies. At its last conference, which I think was in April, it passed a unanimous motion—among all 400 students, there was not one dissenting voice—that said:
“UJS reaffirms its support for the democratic right to non-violently protest and opposes the government’s proposed Boycott Bill which is a curtailment of that right, as well as presenting a risk to British Jewish communities and a setback to Israeli-Palestinian peace.”
One thing that has often been expressed is a concern about what is happening to young Jewish students on campus and the way that BDS affects them and interacts with their student experience. I do not think that there is a clearer expression of concern against this legislation than the one that I have just read to you. That has been echoed by four of the major Jewish youth organisations.
I should say that Jewish youth provision is very organised in the Jewish community. It is where Jewish youth groups produce the future leadership of the Jewish community; I think that if you were to speak to many people running Jewish communal organisations today, that is where they grew up inside the Jewish community. Four of the seven or eight major mainstream ones have come out very publicly against this legislation. Of those, three are the youth organisations of the major religious denominations within our community—the Reform movement, the Liberal movement and the Masorti movement, which are three of the four major strands of Jewish denominations.
So there is not unanimous support for this legislation. We are, obviously, also against it. There is a very ferocious debate, I would say, about the merits of whether the way in which you protect Jewish life in this country is by legislating against opinions that we do not agree with.
Chris Stephens
Q
Hannah Weisfeld: I am not sure whether that is a direct quote—I am not sure whether those were our words or the words of the Union of Jewish Students—but our sense is that the Bill will severely limit freedom of speech, as has been mentioned a lot this morning. Clause 4 already gags the ability of local democracies to express their opinions. That is very troubling in a democratic society—the idea that we legislate against free speech. As Jews, we don’t do well in societies that clamp down on free speech, and I think that there is a really big debate in the community about that. There is a very big debate inside Israel about that, and inside Jewish communities in America, where there has been similar legislation.
I think it is worth drawing your attention to anti-boycott legislation that the Israeli Government passed in the Knesset in 2011. Some very mainstream Israeli political figures—people you will know—came out very strongly against it, such as Ruvi Rivlin, who was the last President of Israel, and Tzipi Livni and Dan Meridor. They were all very clear that clamping down on boycotts and doing so in a legislative way does not help Israel and does not solve questions of antisemitism. Dan Meridor, who was the Likud Deputy Prime Minister, said:
“This law helps in delegitimising Israel, and makes Israel look like a country that prohibits free speech. It is useless. Those who boycott are a small group of people. I oppose boycotts, but they should not be illegal.”
That is the kind of sentiment that we echo.
Going back to the Minister’s question about why we do not support BDS, it is possible to say that we do not support something but that we protect the rights of other people to have that opinion. That is a very important principle in a democratic country, and it is one that we—as an organisation that is committed to Israel, committed to Jewish life in Britain and committed to democracy—want to see being upheld, which is why we have an issue with this legislation.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
Hannah Weisfeld: I do not know whether people have seen it, but a letter was sent by 14 human rights and civil society organisations in Israel that went both to the Opposition and to the Government. They were very clear—I think this is very important—that the current political climate in Israel, which people may or may not be following closely, is extremely dangerous. It is very, very problematic. There are hundreds of thousands of people protesting on a weekly basis. I read yesterday that the police estimate is that there have been 7 million attendees at protests for 35 weeks—not 7 million individuals, but 7 million appearances at protests—and there are very severe clampdowns on free speech.
In the last year, civil society organisations in Israel have already faced two attempts, I think, to severely curtail their funding and to shut down dissent against the Israeli Government. What our partners in Israel wrote to the Government here and to the Opposition is worth quoting from: “We know all too well the consequences of shutting down dissent and disagreement. Today in Israel, there is significant civil unrest involving weekly protests of hundreds of thousands of people, reservists refusing to show up for military service and companies divesting their funds out of Israel. This legislation is giving in to Israel’s far-right Government’s desire to shut down debate, protest and dissent.” Certainly on the ground in Israel, civil society organisations involved in protests see this legislation as a gift to the Benjamin Netanyahu Government.
I should add that there is huge concern in the Jewish community here about the ascendancy of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Government and the far right. Today, literally about two minutes ago, the Government Minister for Diaspora Affairs was just uninvited from JW3, the main Jewish community centre in London, because of his opinions and because of his far-right position. He was due to have a tour there at, I think, 5 or 6 o’clock this afternoon, but about five minutes ago he was uninvited. That is the depth of feeling in this community: 79% of people who were polled in July said that they disapprove of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
We have a community here and partners on the ground in Israel who are deeply worried about the direction of travel. What this Bill will do is say, “It is business as usual—not only business as usual, but we will give you a gift, which is forever to put Israel and the occupied territories beyond public scrutiny.” By keeping the clause that specifically lists Israel, the OPTs and the Golan Heights, we are saying that despite the fact that there are now Israelis divesting and dissolving companies and moving them outside Israel, there can never be any circumstances in which it is OK for public bodies in Britain to do that. I think that that is very, very troubling, given that I think everybody here is committed to Israel’s existence as a democratic and Jewish state.
The Chair
I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the allotted time for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, may I thank the witness for taking a position that does not necessarily conform to some of the other views that we have heard but that makes it absolutely clear what you stand for? We are very grateful for that.
Hannah Weisfeld: Thank you for inviting me.
Examination of witness
James Gurd gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from James Gurd, executive director of Conservative Friends of Israel. We have until 11.25 am for this session. Could the witness please introduce himself for the record?
James Gurd: With pleasure. Good morning. My name is James Gurd, and I am the executive director of Conservative Friends of Israel, which works to promote a strong bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and Israel.
Felicity Buchan
Q
James Gurd: I think this Bill is a very welcome piece of legislation and will go a long way towards reasserting the UK Government’s reserved foreign policy powers. In recent years—over the past decade, really—we have seen that being challenged by an increasing number of public bodies pursuing very divisive BDS activities in the UK. Indeed, the Government have made repeated efforts through the issuance of guidance to try to challenge that; I think the Government have now finally, rightly, reached the decision that legislative action is required.
Those BDS activities, as we have heard from a number of other witnesses this morning, have led to community division. I do not see it as the place of public bodies to be, effectively, picking one side in a dispute over a foreign policy matter that is several thousand miles away. The Jewish community—I believe, as a non-Jew—has felt increasingly isolated in the United Kingdom throughout this process. It is probably worth stating that no UK political party is on the record as supporting BDS, so I would hope that there will be broad support for this.
I believe that this legislation will also have a positive effect for the UK. The UK has very strong economic relations with Israel. Israel makes a very important contribution to this country’s national health service, for example, and BDS has had a chilling effect on those relations and on the prospect of further improved relations over recent years. I know that that is something that CFI certainly welcomes in the Government’s efforts to secure a free trade deal with Israel.
I believe that the Bill would also support the UK Government’s belief in a two-state solution. That is something that I believe is undermined by BDS. It is a movement that is, I believe, associated more with extremists. Certainly you can look at the Palestinian BDS National Committee, which is the organising body over in the Palestinian territories. That body includes organisations such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which are terror groups proscribed here in the United Kingdom. Within the UK context, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign is seen as one of the most prominent organisers of the BDS activities here in the United Kingdom. It is an organisation that until a few years ago—I feel this is probably worth putting on the record—had a logo presenting a future Palestinian state on top of a state of Israel. So I believe that the Bill will have a number of positive implications.
Felicity Buchan
Q
James Gurd: I believe that that is a reasonable approach that the Government have decided to take, and I believe it is a reaction to the fact that BDS is unique in its singular focus on the state of Israel. We have seen, as a number of others have referred to this morning, a House of Commons briefing note that pointed out that of all recorded examples of boycott activity pursued by public bodies in the United Kingdom, they are targeting exclusively Israel, so there is clearly a unique problem here.
When you look at the Bill in a broader sense, it is a Bill that has universal application. Foreign policy is a reserved matter for the UK Government; it is not, I believe, the place of public bodies to be pursuing that. They are there to represent all their diverse communities equally and to ensure that they are fiduciarily responsible in how they deliver that.
Nicola Richards
Q
James Gurd: We have seen a growth in BDS activities in public bodies over the last decade. As I have referred to before, BDS is uniquely discriminatory in nature, as it only targets Israel.
I first encountered BDS while I was at university. I was at King’s College in ’09, which coincided—as is so often the case when there is conflict in Israel and the Palestinian territories—with a spike in BDS interest. That led to a series of BDS activities, which students were perfectly entitled to do and which they will be able to continue to do under the Bill, but it led to a series of antisemitic incidents on campus. The head of the university had to send around a communication to all members of the student body to call it out. It has since gone mainstream, in the sense that it has left the student body politic and entered public bodies here in the UK, so it has grown as a challenge.
Having said that, it is worth putting it on the record that the Bill will in no way challenge the right of a private individual or a private company to pursue BDS. They are perfectly entitled to do so if they wish.
Wayne David
Q
Do you see it as a difficulty that there is a lack of clarity in the legislation, because the assumption is that Britain is Britain? Well, Britain is not Britain; Britain is a number of nations. There is a concern, certainly among the Welsh Senedd, that that factor has not been taken into account with regard to the legislation.
I will give a specific example of a concern from Northern Ireland, where public service pension schemes are devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. For this legislation to be introduced in Northern Ireland requires a legislative consent motion. The trouble is that there is not a Northern Ireland Assembly sitting to give it. I therefore presume that this legislation would not apply to Northern Ireland. Is that your understanding? Do you think that the issue of devolution and the nations of the United Kingdom is not fully taken into account in the Bill?
James Gurd: I am not sure that I am perfectly placed to comment on Stormont not sitting or on devolution, but I believe that the UK Government are right in taking a UK-wide approach on this. It was a manifesto commitment made in 2019 to all citizens of the United Kingdom.
If we look at the evidence, it is in Wales and Scotland that we have seen perhaps the most BDS activities by public bodies. That includes anything from West Dunbartonshire banning the inclusion of the books of Israeli authors in its libraries in 2009, through to the Labour Welsh Government two years ago, I believe, announcing their intention to release a procurement advice note in relation to economic activities in procurement practices with Israeli settlements, the sole thing identified as a problem within that process. That was subsequently dropped following a backlash from organisations including the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies. The First Minister of Wales met them to hear their concerns. This is clearly a very live problem, but it is a UK-wide problem. I would support the UK Government in whatever approach they deemed best to tackle it.
The Chair
Before you do, is there anybody else? [Interruption.] I will bring in Chris Stephens and come back to you if there is time.
Wayne David
Q
James Gurd: My understanding is that foreign policy is still a reserved matter for His Majesty’s Government in those situations. It is only right and proper that the democratically elected Government of this country get to determine what those foreign policy positions are. To repeat what I said earlier, this will have a very significant effect in countering the divisive nature of BDS in all corners of the United Kingdom.
We have seen the Jewish community on the receiving end of repeated efforts to pursue boycotts of Israel or indeed companies operating within the contested territories—the Occupied Palestinian Territories—but that has often led to the targeting of the Jewish community directly. This is not just an Israel-Palestine issue; it feeds into the persecution of and discrimination against the UK’s Jewish community. The Tricycle Theatre in London cancelled its hosting of the UK Jewish Film Festival one year. As was cited earlier, there was the case of Sainsbury’s in Holborn removing kosher goods from its shelves due to pressure from BDS activities. This is a problem that has been left unaddressed for too long. There is a clear problem, and I believe that this is the right approach to respond to it.
Chris Stephens
Q
The Chair
I am going to close the session in two minutes, so it would be good to have a concise answer, please.
James Gurd: Understood, Chair, but that is a big old question. I do believe that the Bill will contribute to wider efforts to promote peace. The UK Government are committed to a two-state solution. I believe that BDS is inherently divisive. As I have said already, the organisations affiliated with it within the Palestinian territories include the likes of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which are proscribed terror groups here in the UK.
To cite a personal experience, I visited SodaStream, which is an Israeli company that makes products that have the ability to make fizzy drinks. It was based in the west bank, but following pressure from BDS activities over a sustained period, it had to move. The factory employed 600 Palestinian workers, who would have received greater work benefits and salaries than anywhere in the Palestinian economy. It had to be moved to Israel, where only 100 of those Palestinian workers were able to continue working. I spoke to some of those Palestinian workers myself on a CFI visit to Israel, and they were deeply unhappy about the fact that so many of their family and friends had lost their jobs as a result of that BDS activity.
Indeed, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority President, is on record as having said that he is also opposed to BDS. This is not some sort of peace movement. It is a deeply divisive movement that seeks to delegitimise the state of Israel. The UK and the UK Government should have absolutely no truck with it.
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 5th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 September 2023 - (5 Sep 2023)
The Chair
Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the second sitting of evidence on the Bill. We will hear from six panels of witnesses this afternoon. Gentlemen are more than welcome to remove their jackets; it is quite warm in here.
First we will hear from Dr Bryn Harris, chief legal counsel at the Free Speech Union, and Dr Alan Mendoza, the executive director of the Henry Jackson Society. Presumably Dr Bryn Harris will be brought in when he arrives, but meanwhile, Dr Mendoza, if you are happy for us to do so, we will start by directing our questioning to you. We have until 2.30 pm for this panel. Could you please introduce yourself for the record?
Dr Mendoza: Yes, I am Dr Alan Mendoza, the executive director and a founder of the Henry Jackson Society, which is a foreign and security policy think-tank.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
Q
Dr Mendoza: Thank you, Minister. The answer is very simple: yes. I think it is quite obvious that the Bill does not preclude any individual councillor, or indeed anyone working for a public body, from expressing their personal opinion on a boycott or something similar. It merely prevents bodies that really have no jurisdiction in such areas from passing formal motions on them. That is quite clearly laid out in the legislation, and the ECHR would agree.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Dr Mendoza: Yes, again, I agree. First, if you are stopping the ability to boycott, there is no point having the ability to talk about those issues collectively. Secondly, if you have a debate about that, it can inflame community tensions. We have seen lots of examples in the past few years where even discussing these matters—alleging or suggesting that one country might be responsible for x, y or z—lends itself to an increase in community tensions on the ground; people take it as an excuse to go into worse forms of hatred. There is evidence that that has happened. If we are saying that public bodies that are not the UK Parliament or UK Government should not have control over foreign policy decisions, it makes sense to stop them having the ability to talk about the intent to do something that they will not be allowed to do.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Dr Harris: If you could repeat the questions, that would be helpful.
Felicity Buchan
The first question was about the Government’s assessment that the Bill does not breach article 10 of the ECHR because it applies only to public authorities while they are carrying out public functions, and private individuals can express views, and choose to boycott and divest. The second question was on clause 4, and on whether stating an intent to boycott has similar impacts on community cohesion to boycotting.
Dr Harris: Thank you. To state my position generally, the goal in clause 1 is broadly okay and compatible with free speech; clause 4 is not. I disagree with some of the Government’s analysis. The explanatory notes state that public bodies do not have article 10 rights. That is certainly true of core public bodies—the police, the NHS, Whitehall—but my understanding is that that is not true of hybrid public bodies, which may well include universities. Certainly, the European Court has held that boycott is, or can be, an exercise of the right to freedom of expression, as in the 2020 case of Baldassi and France, and so free speech rights are certainly engaged. This Bill very clearly targets expressions of political and moral conscience, which is to say the form of expression that is most highly protected by article 10. I think there are some very real problems, and perhaps there will be time to develop my view on what those issues are.
Regarding clause 1, as I say, I think it is acceptable, first, that Parliament sets out the relevant considerations that a public authority may have in mind in making a decision. The public law—the common law—already does that, so I think that is perfectly acceptable in principle. I think it is right as well that the UK should not be embarrassed by perhaps rather adolescent campaigning issues, rather overstated campaigns that perhaps unfairly denigrate friendly countries; I think that is completely understandable.
The problem I have with clause 1 is the justification, and that would go to any assessment by a court were there to be a compatibility challenge. On that justification—that the UK should have a single front or a single, agreed foreign policy—I am not sure that the full range of public authorities owe, or should owe, any duty of fidelity to central Government’s foreign policy. In fact, I think the opposite: that our public debate is likely to be enriched and informed by greater diversity. I think that that justification is questionable and would go into the article 10 assessment were there a challenge.
I very much agree that the second justification—of preserving community cohesion—is a legitimate aim. I think it is entirely foreseeable, and probably has occurred, that some BDS campaigns have been informed by malice against Jewish people. However, it is to be noted that this Bill will do far more than merely target and limit those divestment campaigns that are malicious. It would cover, for instance—and I draw no parallel here with BDS—the anti-apartheid movement of the 1980s.
I will move on to clause 4 because you did raise that. My position is that clause 4 really needs to go in its entirety. To take clause 4(1)(a), which is the prohibition on statements of intent, there is no need—I think it is not necessary either politically or perhaps even legally—to prohibit statements. The mischief that is to be prohibited is the threatened act. The law will already help there. If a local authority were to resolve that it is going to divest the goods of a certain country, there would be the option of a prohibiting order by way of judicial review, and that targets the act. The court would be able to say, “You may not carry out this act that you threaten to carry out.” It is not clear to me that the law needs to go further in prohibiting statements. That is not to say that the law could not go a bit further, but I think there is a question regarding the necessity of this measure and the necessity of interfering with the freedom to make political and moral statements.
Clause 4(1)(b), as you can probably imagine, is the most problematic. I do not think the Government, from what I have seen, have put forward any rationale for why hypothetical statements are a mischief. It seems to me a huge overreach concerning political speech. I see very little harm that it would do, and I think it is going to cause serious defensiveness and caution in debates on the governance of universities and local authorities, which perhaps may be well worth having, but I will leave it there for now.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Dr Harris: Correct.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Just a few quick follow-up questions. The Bill contains the power to exempt certain countries as time goes on so that foreign policy can be adaptive. Do you agree with that? Secondly, briefly, do you think that the BDS movement has been successful in pressurising Israel?
Dr Harris: Sorry, can you repeat the first question? I am so sorry; it skipped my mind.
Felicity Buchan
The first question was about the Bill containing the power to exempt certain countries as time goes on, so it can be adaptive to foreign policy.
Dr Harris: I see. I accept that. Again, I will go to the example of the anti-apartheid movement. I want to make it clear that I think it is entirely wrong to compare the only democracy in the middle east, Israel, to apartheid South Africa, but for the purposes of the Bill, the anti-apartheid movement in the ’80s is relevant. In the debate that occurred there, there was a broad disagreement between central Government and their foreign policy, and a wider civil society movement of churches, trade unions and, eventually, a large number of local authorities —about 120. It was eventually curbed in 1988 with the Local Government Act, but the question is: was that debate and that tension productive? Did it inform the public debate? Did it aid the global movement against apartheid? I think it surely did.
It is beyond doubt that the British anti-apartheid movement led the world outside South Africa. For me, that is a great victory of British decency—of British soft power and, of course, British free speech. Going back to the power that you mentioned, whereby the Minister can, by regulation, add countries to the list, that debate and that soft power would be considerably diminished, especially in their legitimacy, if they were essentially licensed by the imprimatur of the Minister saying, “These are debates you can have.” For me, that would really reduce the power of that bottom-up movement.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Dr Mendoza: Yes. I disagree a bit with Dr Harris. I am not for a moment saying that the anti-apartheid movement in civil society was not valuable or successful—it hugely was—but let us focus on what we are talking about: a tiny sliver of institutions looking at the question of boycotts, as opposed to forbidding the discussion of boycotts in public, which sounds like where Dr Harris is heading in this sort of discussion. That is not what the Bill prevents. In fact, you can talk about any foreign policy aspect and any country, even in areas where a local authority or university has no power or authority to particularly affect a policy, and that will not be stopped. We need to focus very much on the narrowness of the Bill, which relates purely to boycotts and the sanctions policy.
Casting our minds back to the 1980s, had that been forbidden, would it have had any effect on the effectiveness of the anti-apartheid movement? I think absolutely not. There was enough out there that would have driven it anyway in terms of foreign policy; there would have been that debate. We are not talking about having any curbs on the freedom of speech of individuals.
I can guarantee that, in today’s society, with the 24/7 focus on social media and with so many outlets to talk about things, all the Bill is trying to do is, essentially, keep authorities that have no particular purpose in looking at specific foreign policy issues in the form of boycotts from wasting their time and public money in doing so. Again, privately, they will be perfectly able to do it: publicly, there is no call for it and there is no need for it, given that it will be covered elsewhere. This House is where you should be debating foreign policy—not in local councils, not in devolved Assemblies. I speak as a local councillor in that regard. I can assure you that were I to be speaking on my area of expertise—foreign policy—in the council chamber of my local authority, my residents would rightly ask, “What on earth are you doing wasting council time like this?”
Let us get back to the focus of what we are trying to do, which is something very narrow, to reflect the proper place of foreign policy in this country and the proper people entitled to make decisions on it, without compromising anyone’s ability to talk about, argue and discuss it, and tear it apart if necessary, in a private capacity.
Dr Harris: If I can briefly follow up, I defer entirely to Dr Mendoza on the effectiveness of the BDS movement: I do not know.
I omitted to say that I accept that the clause 4 prohibition is on a person who is subject to clause 1. The difficulty—and this is perhaps a drafting point—is that clause 1 concerns decisions, and therefore it squarely fits within section 6 of the Human Rights Act. Then, in clause 4, we go to persons who are subject to clause 1. What is unclear to me—and I trust this is not my misreading of the Bill—is when the clause 4 duty bites on that person. Does it only bite on them when they are exercising the decision-making power in clause 1, or does it bite on them if they hold that power? If they generally have that power by statute, are they therefore constantly under that clause 4 duty? The scope of clause 4 is unclear at the moment and, as with any restriction on liberty, it should be narrowly stated and certainly be narrowly construed by the courts.
Dr Mendoza: Dr Harris has reminded me that I did not answer the BDS effectiveness question. It has been entirely ineffective as a campaign globally, so much so of course that it is not shared formally by the Palestinian Authority itself as a policy. That should tell you that this is a fringe movement that has no purchase even with the elected authority within the PA.
Dr Harris: If I could quickly come back—there is a bit of a double act going on with Dr Mendoza—
The Chair
Just a reminder that this panel is due to conclude at 2.30 pm and I have three more Members who have indicated that they wish to contribute. If anyone wishes to contribute, please waggle your fingers at me. Do you want to add anything further, Dr Harris?
Dr Harris: Briefly, I agree with Dr Mendoza. The justification here should be the limitation of vires—of the powers—of these bodies. That is the way to justify clause 1 for me. The justification is not, “Get behind Government policy” or “Do not make these moral or political statements”: it is vires and powers. We can come back to that in further questions.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I have just one question, about clause 7, which governs the information notices—the mechanism by which the Government can compel information from public bodies to find out if they have made, or are about to make, a decision that would contravene clause 1. In clause 7(8), those notices override any obligation of confidence, so if it is a conversation between someone and their lawyer, the Government can compel that information. That seems to me to be a very strong power. What is your opinion?
Dr Harris: My reading of that, on its face, is that it would be something like the whistleblowing protection, whereby a whistleblower is exempted from duties of confidence to their employer. Without more, it would strike me as extremely unlikely that this would override the privilege between a lawyer and client.
Alex Norris
Even though it says “any obligation” on the face of the Bill?
Dr Harris: Yes.
Dr Mendoza: I have a slightly different response. I am slightly perplexed by the question. What were you thinking that was so secretive and furtive in nature that would even require a lawyer/client confidentiality level? We are talking about a simple foreign policy discussion, not about someone’s secret actions.
Alex Norris
Q
Dr Harris: It is important to note that it does not say that the enforcer can demand information that is confidential. All that happens is that the person disclosing will not be liable if they breach a right of confidence. It is not a right to extract the information, or a power of the Government; it is simply a freeing from liability of the discloser.
Dr Mendoza: I would agree with that reading. It says:
“A person providing information in compliance”,
so I think that is the correct reading of that clause.
Dr Harris: There is one, perhaps related, problem for me. Clause 4 states:
“A person who is subject to section 1 must not publish a statement”,
and that can include statements of intent or hypothetical intent. Consider, for instance, a university governing body—senate or council—making a decision about divestment. Let us say that there is a meeting, there are minutes and they are kicking ideas around. They may well benefit from a degree of those deliberations not being public.
The problem I have is that my understanding is that an FOI disclosure would constitute publication. If you look at section 79 of FOIA, it is explicitly called “publication”. This body would be in a position whereby it would say, “Well, we have to comply with FOIA, because we have to disclose, and if we do disclose, we may be breaching the law by publishing a statement whereby we say that we intend to act in a certain way.” It is a drafting point, I think, but that needs to be cleared up. We do not want over-defensiveness in these deliberations by public authorities.
Dr Mendoza: I agree. That is an interesting technicality that probably should be taken note of by the Committee.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Q
“focused primarily on supporting global democracy in the face of threats from China and Russia”.
Does your organisation in any way support divestment in China, particularly regarding the treatment of Uyghur Muslims?
Dr Mendoza: I would say, on that point, absolutely. The position that we adopt with China is very simple. I believe that you have a witness who will be able to tell you about the experiences of her family, her relatives and, indeed, her people in what are effectively modern-day concentration camps, to the point that many among us believe that the Chinese Government are practising genocide against this particular group in Xinjiang. If we look at what is actually happening there—the eradication of their culture, the imprisonment of people for forced labour and that sort of activity—on that basis, we are essentially talking about modern-day slavery. You will be aware that the Bill will be superseded by modern slavery actions and the UK’s sanctions regime on this. Yes, we do believe that there ought to be accountability from the Chinese Government on this score, and I personally would not be buying things from Xinjiang province.
Chris Stephens
Q
Dr Harris, you mentioned the anti-apartheid movement. Obviously, Glasgow has a history around that: Glasgow District Council renamed a street, gave Nelson Mandela the freedom of the city and, like many other local authorities, boycotted South African goods and services. If this Bill had been in operation then, it would have prohibited Glasgow District Council from taking such actions, wouldn’t it?
Dr Harris: Yes, that is my understanding. As you say, Strathclyde local authority was one of the first in the UK, along with Sheffield, to divest from South African goods. My understanding is that it certainly would have prevented the divestments, and also the discussion around them. There is a debate to be had, on which I have no expertise, as to how effective the anti-apartheid movement was in terms of pure efficacy—in terms of pure pressure on the South African Government—but my understanding is that, were the Bill in place during the ’80s, had the Government not added South Africa to the roster, as it were, by way of regulations, you would be correct. While it would also prohibit perhaps slightly more—forgive me—adolescent campaigns, or ones that are perhaps less well-reasoned, it would also prohibit those that have greater moral force behind them.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
Q
Dr Mendoza: I would go back to the question that Dr Harris posed. It is really a question of vires; it is about what a public body collectively should or should not be doing. A public body should not be making decisions in contrast to UK foreign policy on something like a boycott, basically. Individual members—individual fellows or whatever it might be—have every ability and right, still, to say what they like on the subject, but they cannot speak on behalf of their institution or their authority to do that. However, when it comes to opposing a boycott, there are rights and abilities there. That is something that public bodies are not allowed to do, so that would be in keeping with that.
I think there is a clear distinction between the two things. One is something that the body is not competent, or does not have the jurisdiction, to legally carry out; on that basis, what is the purpose of speaking on it? The other—opposing a boycott—is something it can do, because that is the norm and the effective position, in law, for that authority. I therefore see no problem, or indeed contradiction between the two things.
Dr Harris: Again, as I have said, it certainly conflicts with the spirit of free speech, and I suspect also with the law regarding freedom of expression. As I said, the European Court of Human Rights, at least in one case—that of Baldassi in France, which I hope the GLD will have taken on board—certainly does say that a boycott is a protected act of protest. The very interesting thing about that case is that the court said that justification for the restriction of political speech is key; there needs to be a tight justification for it. That is entirely in keeping with the common law in this country, and the political philosophy of this country, that political speech, especially, must merit the utmost protection in law.
I think that there is a point on which the Government are on safer ground. Let us say that they want to avoid the embarrassment of legal challenge—they might reasonably wish to, and I am sure that they do. I would certainly say that the community cohesion point is a stronger justification, and the European court makes that distinction very clearly too. As I have said, BDS, especially in the light of recent events, clearly goes to community cohesion, but it is entirely foreseeable that there may be future foreign policy controversies where that is not an issue and the Bill will still apply to them. That raises the question of proportionality: because it will cover even cases where community cohesion is not in play, is there overreach?
Let me quickly say on vires, because I think it is quite important, that it is entirely right for the law and Parliament to say to subordinate bodies, “This is the extent of your power; you serve the public interest in this way, to this extent, and you use your resources for this purpose.” I think it is entirely right for Parliament to say, as it already does, “If you’re a local government authority, foreign policy isn’t really what you should be spending your money on.” I think it is right to say that to other bodies. However, I think it is extremely provocative for Parliament to say that to universities. This Government and Parliament have done excellent work protecting academic freedom, but there is a second limb to academic freedom, which is the autonomy of academic institutions, and I think it is extremely questionable to challenge that.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
Dr Harris: It is a good question. I am not entirely sure. It is obvious that in some areas, where perhaps there is a certain degree of activism in the local authority, it could lead to some members of the community—I mean Jewish members of the community specifically—feeling like there is less pressure, and feeling less victimised and targeted. But as I say, there is going to be a significant number of cases where this justification will not apply because there is not an issue of community cohesion. Take the Ethiopian and Eritrean war: how likely is that to raise questions in this country of community cohesion?
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions—I apologise. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee.
Examination of Witness
Rahima Mahmut gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome. We will now hear from Rahima Mahmut, the UK director of the World Uyghur Congress. We have until 2.45 pm for this session. Would the witness introduce herself for the record?
Rahima Mahmut: I am Rahima Mahmut. I am Uyghur. I have been living in the UK since 2000, and I am a human rights activist. I have not been able to return home for the last 23 years. Since the implementation of the genocidal policy in my country in 2016, I have been heavily involved in leading the campaign in this country. I am the UK director of the World Uyghur Congress and the executive director of Stop Uyghur Genocide. That is all I can tell you about me, but if you want to know more I am happy to continue.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Rahima Mahmut: All my life, I have been fighting for freedom of speech and the freedom to make decisions. I do believe that foreign policy is not necessarily fair. For example, since 2016 and especially since 2017, mass arrests have started in my country. The UN said that up to 1 million people are in concentration camps but we believe that it could be up to 3 million people. I have lost contact entirely with family members since January 2017. In April, I learned that my sister had died in March—one month earlier—and I was told not to contact anyone in case I put their life in danger. I learned that my brother was in a camp for over two years and released because he was almost dying.
I have been campaigning in Parliament, and it has passed a motion declaring that genocide is happening. The independent UK Uyghur tribunal, led by Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, also found evidence of genocide based on the forced sterilisation, forced abortion, and prevention of future births of Uyghur children. There is also forced labour, family separation, children being taken away, cultural destruction, and so on. We have a huge amount of evidence gathered by the Uyghur tribunal, yet we have not really seen the UK take active policy decisions on trade or anything else.
It really pains me to see this kind of inactivity from the politicians because of the UK’s economic dependency on China and its diplomatic relationship. Our Foreign Secretary visited China only last week, after which I penned two op-eds: one was in The Spectator, in which I said that this is a betrayal of the Uyghurs; the other was in The Guardian. I recommend that you read them if you have time. I laid out the reasons why this is so unfair and why it just does not really align with the human rights that we believe the UK upholds.
In this kind of situation, I do believe that local authorities and other bodies should have those powers. We campaign, for example, about solar panels, an area that is heavily tainted by Uyghur slave labour. We know that local authorities make decisions on buying those products, and we believe that if we can convince the local authorities, they can decide not to buy solar panels tainted by slave labour.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Rahima Mahmut: No. For example, we are also campaigning against Hikvision cameras, which are made in China. Hikvision is one of the biggest CCTV companies, and its cameras cover internment camps and the entire Uyghur region. I always call this genocide against my people the first high-tech genocide. We are campaigning against Hikvision because it is complicit in this genocide, but we cannot necessarily prove that Hikvision cameras are made using slave labour. If the Government do not recognise this as genocide, then local governments and public bodies cannot make the decision to boycott or to stop such products coming into this country.
Felicity Buchan
There will be the ability to exclude on modern slavery and labour misconduct grounds under the Procurement Bill and in this Bill, but perhaps, in the interest of time, I should allow colleagues to come in.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Q
Rahima Mahmut: First, thank you for that question. I thank the Jewish community from the bottom of my heart for the support we have received—Stop Uyghur Genocide received its first fund from the Pears Foundation. As people who have experienced this absolute horror in the past, the Jewish community can relate and understand the pain.
When it comes to the legislation, I am not a lawyer. I only look at whether a piece of legislation will benefit my community. So far, from my own understanding of this Bill, I do not see that it will have any kind of positive outcome. As I have explained, this is because of the power that China has due to the economic dependency that this country and many others have on it, which is why we could not really mobilise Governments to recognise it and take any meaningful action. Therefore, I strongly oppose this Bill. This is not just me; I represent the Uyghur community, which also opposes this Bill. We do not want this Bill to one day prevent our campaign from being successful.
The Chair
I am afraid that this will probably have to be the last question to the witness. I call Chris Stephens.
Chris Stephens
Q
I have just got a simple question for you. George Peretz KC observed that the Bill would prohibit public bodies and local authorities from imposing their own bans on, for example, products and services imported from China, based on boycotting unethical production chains that use Uyghur forced labour. Is your opinion the same as that of George Peretz KC? Is there anything else you would like to add before we close?
Rahima Mahmut: We hear a lot about Uyghur forced labour at the moment, from cotton products to solar panels, and much more. But one thing is very clear: no one can go inside the region to carry out any kind of meaningful due diligence. The Chinese Government always have their own ways of manipulating these processes of examination, such as changing goods made in so-called Xinjiang to say, more broadly, “made in China”.
This is a very uphill battle. We have over 300 organisations united as End Uyghur Forced Labour, but we are not really achieving the goal that we would like to achieve. I believe that the most powerful and important outcome would be for the UK Government to bring in a ban on imports from the region, and to spare some resources to control and sanction China. We know that Russia has been sanctioned, and we know the reasons—you can see the bombardment and the people dying. You can see the visual sights. Although you do not see the scenes, my people are dying in camps in large numbers, and there is no investigation or action. I therefore believe that action should not just be limited to certain Bills—we would like to see accountability overall.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions on this. I would like to thank our witness very warmly on behalf of the Committee.
Examination of Witness
Stephen Cragg KC gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Stephen Cragg KC. We have until 3 pm for this session. Would the witness introduce himself?
Stephen Cragg: I am Stephen Cragg KC. I am a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers specialising in public and human rights law.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Stephen Cragg: First of all, it is unclear whether that is the case or not.
That is something which needs to be clarified—if that is the intention, it should be spelt out. The concern is that the right to freedom of speech of councillors speaking about matters in council chambers, for example, might be affected—that is unclear from the Bill at the moment. In article 10, the right to freedom of speech also involves the right of the public to receive information. It is interesting that local councillors, for example, might feel restrictions on saying things in debates in council chambers because they are afraid of falling foul of some of the provisions in this Bill. Michael Gove said in a statement that it does not apply to individuals—on the face of it, I can see that argument, but I think it is very unclear and needs to be clarified if that is the intention.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Stephen Cragg: I recognise that these are the kinds of powers regulatory authorities often have. There is concern about the fact that there are also judicial and quasi-judicial review remedies in the measure and about the effects of the regulatory provisions, which involve possibly preventing someone from making a statement in advance. There is also concern about the information notices provision in clause 7. I was in the room when the question about legal professional privilege was asked. I cannot see anything in clause 7(8) which provides any protection for legal professional privilege. It was also said that it gives people the power to provide that information, but that is not right either because clause 7 is all about complying with a notice—people do not have any discretion as to whether they disclose the information or not. There are concerns about the provisions in clauses 6 to 10.
I also note that there is no clue at all about the kind of monetary penalty that might be imposed as well—whether it will be something like the Information Commissioner has, which can go to hundreds of thousands of pounds, if it will be £100 or if it will be a rap on the knuckles and being told, “Don’t do it again.” All that needs to be clarified, and it is not clear at the moment.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Stephen Cragg: In my view, those specific words are there in clause 7(8):
“A person providing information in compliance with an information notice does not breach any obligation of confidence owed by the person in respect of the information, or any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).”
I do not see how you can get much clearer than that.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Stephen Cragg: If that is the intention—that legal professional privilege is excluded—it needs to say that.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Q
Stephen Cragg: I think the position is that advisory opinions are provided by international courts that say that providing support for settlements etc is something that should not be done. One of the concerns is that this is something that might get fought out in the courts under the Bill—councils thinking that they can take things into account that mean that they are not breaching the UK’s international human rights and law obligations but being unsure about that and seeking clarification from the courts, and individuals and bodies thinking that there will not be a breach of the UK’s international law obligations fighting that case or raising their points of view in the courts and the courts having to resolve those issues. One can see that that is something that might happen quite quickly.
Ms Qaisar
Q
Stephen Cragg: Yes, because there are competing views on that. If there are competing views, local authorities might want to seek a view from the courts on whether their view is correct. It is then all up for grabs in the High Court and beyond after that—something that the courts have tried to avoid getting embroiled in.
Alex Norris
Q
Stephen Cragg: What the Bill does is give very wide powers to the Secretary of State to change lots of aspects of this—which countries are involved, which conditions and the like. The concern when you have secondary legislation powers is always, “All right, this Government might not use them in a way that you would not agree with, but Governments down the line may use the powers they have here to mould a system where countries that they agree with are excluded under the Bill, and countries and issues that they do not agree with are the ones that things will be focused on.” There is always a concern about that. In something as important as this, it seems to me that that should be on the face of the Bill; it would give me a lot more reassurance as a lawyer if it were on the face of the Bill.
Alex Norris
Q
Stephen Cragg: Yes. I read out the terms of clause 7(8) and it seems to say that there is no restriction on the information which can be requested, as far as I can see. If that is not the Government’s intention, it is simple to put that right.
The Chair
Thank you very much. If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witness and we will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Francis Hoar, Professor Andrew Tettenborn and Professor Adam Tomkins gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Francis Hoar, of Field Court Chambers, Professor Andrew Tettenborn of the University of Swansea and Professor Adam Tomkins of Glasgow University, who joins us via Zoom. We have until 3.45 pm for this session. Can the witnesses please introduce themselves, for the record, starting with Mr Hoar?
Francis Hoar: Good afternoon, I am Francis Hoar. I am a barrister from Field Court Chambers and specialise in public law.
Professor Tettenborn: Good afternoon, I am Andrew Tettenborn. I am a professor of law at Swansea University and also a member of the Free Speech Union.
Professor Tomkins: Good afternoon, I am Adam Tomkins. I hold the John Millar chair of public law at the University of Glasgow. I am a specialist in constitutional law with a longstanding interest in the issues of the Bill. I am also a former elected member of the Scottish Parliament.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Professor Tomkins: Yes, absolutely. I agree strongly that the Bill should have UK-wide extent and application and should apply to all public bodies throughout the United Kingdom, including devolved Administrations—arguably, perhaps especially devolved Administrations. The Bill has two fundamentally important policy motivations. One is with regard to community cohesion. Community cohesion is a responsibility of the United Kingdom Government and, indeed, of the United Kingdom Parliament throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. The other is of course to safeguard the integrity and singularity of the UK’s established foreign policy, which is set exclusively for the whole of the United Kingdom by the United Kingdom Government, accountable as it is to the United Kingdom Parliament. The devolution settlement sits on top of those constitutional fundamentals and is not an exception to those constitutional fundamentals. For all those reasons, it is vital that the Bill applies and extends to all four nations of the United Kingdom.
Felicity Buchan
Andrew or Francis, do you want to come in?
Professor Tettenborn: I certainly back what Adam Tomkins has said. If we put the boot on the other foot, imagine that we are negotiating with the State Department over something very delicate, and the answer comes back from the State Department, “We will give you support—we will put pressure on this country—but we can’t answer for California or Colorado, who might have a different official view.” I do not think we would be very happy about that. Again, we could ask the German Government and they could say, “We are of this view, but the Government of Bavaria or Baden-Württemberg think differently.” We owe it to our foreign partners to speak with one voice, in the same way as we might expect them to.
Francis Hoar: In principle, I agree with that. I do have concerns about the Bill on which I shall extend later, but in principle yes, the United Kingdom should speak with one voice. I think it is fair for Her Majesty’s Government to deprecate and to attempt to restrict, within their powers and within the devolutionary settlement, as I think they are, the attempt by the Scottish Government in particular to have a separate and independent foreign policy through having missions abroad and making statements and, perhaps, investment decisions.
It is also appropriate to remember that there used to be a convention that when speaking abroad, Her Majesty’s Opposition would not contradict the foreign policy of the day. That is not to say that they did not, as they of course did, object to foreign policy in Parliament, when legislation was proposed and also in the sense of Government decisions. That was something that Clement Attlee and others were extremely keen on furthering. I regret that in the past 20 years in particular, and perhaps particularly since 2016, that has not been something with which Her Majesty’s Opposition have complied. They frequently negotiated with representatives of foreign states in the Brexit process, which I think is regrettable. That goes well beyond the scope of the Bill, but I think the policy objective of ensuring that the UK speaks with one voice is an appropriate one.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Professor Tettenborn: I am probably in the firing line here as I come from a university.
Felicity Buchan
Yes, absolutely.
Professor Tettenborn: I think it probably should, but perhaps for reasons different from those for other public authorities. The issue of free speech in universities is very much an issue of free speech for individual scholars within those universities. It seems to me rather inappropriate that a university should have a corporate view on a particular matter of foreign policy. It should, if you like, hold the ring between individual academics. So when it comes to universities I think there is a specific justification.
When it comes to public authorities, I simply go back to the idea that public authorities should regard it as off limits—ultra vires, if you like—to have their own foreign policy and their own views on what individual foreign Governments should be doing. That is particularly because, as was mentioned earlier, if you have, for example, large numbers of people from India and Pakistan in a particular local authority area, there is nothing that is going to make dissension worse than a public authority that is seen to favour Pakistan, say, over Kashmir.
Felicity Buchan
Francis or Adam, do you want to come in on that point?
Francis Hoar: Maybe I will let Adam conclude on this, and I will be much more brief. I am ambivalent about universities, to be honest, for the reasons that Dr Harris, whose evidence I heard, set out. I appreciate your point, Minister, which is that the legislation applies only when the university is acting as a public body. I appreciate that distinction, which can perhaps be fine. That is the kind of issue that might be teased out in the courts, but I suppose that is part of the nature of such a Bill. I sympathise and agree, to a certain extent, with Professor Tettenborn’s point about it not really being appropriate for universities to have corporate identities, but whether that should be in public legislation is a different matter.
Professor Tomkins: I agree with what Andrew Tettenborn just said. I should probably have said at the beginning that I am also a member of the Free Speech Union; indeed, I am on its Scotland advisory panel. I do not like disagreeing with Bryn Harris, but I am afraid I disagree with quite a lot of what he had to say about the Bill this afternoon, not only with regard to the universities question, but with regard to clause 4 more generally.
In the law of the United Kingdom, we do not have a single definition of the public sector or the public sphere, but we do have a very workable template that has been used for more than 20 years now in the Human Rights Act, which is what the Bill validly seeks to borrow from. That brings within its scope hybrid authorities such as universities when they are acting in a public capacity. It is a way of understanding the scope of the public sphere or public sector that has not caused particularly difficult problems in litigation at the High Court or at a higher level in the more than 20 years during which the Human Rights Act has been in force. That is not to say that it has not been litigated at all—of course it has—but it has not caused particular problems.
I think it eminently sensible that the Bill seeks to use that template in this context. I am very relaxed about universities and other public authorities being captured within the scope of the Bill in the same way as local authorities and devolved Administrations. I do not have any issues or concerns in that regard.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Professor Tomkins: Absolutely, yes.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Professor Tomkins: Perhaps I can address that question, Minister; I have done quite a lot of work on how the Bill would compare with the position in France and in a number of the states of the United States.
The Bill is very modest indeed in comparison with what has been happening in France and in the United States. French authorities, for example, are seeking to criminalise various forms of BDS activity, which the Bill emphatically does not. In the United States, where I think the states that have enacted anti-BDS legislation are now in the majority, that legislation varies from state to state but its general tenor is that public authorities are prevented by force of law from contracting at all with American companies unless those American companies declare that they do not boycott either Israel or the occupied territories. Again, that is going much further than the Bill will go in the UK. When understood comparatively in terms of the way in which our closest friends and allies are taking legal action to clamp down on very counterproductive and unhelpful BDS campaigns, the Bill is very modest, but it is not without importance and is not ineffective.
It is worth remembering—I listened to the exchanges with other witnesses earlier—that of the boycott campaigns that have been targeted against a foreign power by public authorities in the United Kingdom, every single one has been targeted at Israel, so analogies with what happened 30 years ago or more with regard to South Africa are perhaps a little inapt. It is true that the Bill is of general application and is not specifically about Israel, but the facts on the ground are that, as matters stand, every single one of the publicly funded anti-BDS campaigns in the United Kingdom has been targeted at Israel.
The Bill is very important and I unqualifiedly support it, but in comparison with what our closest friends and allies are doing elsewhere in the world, it is a rather modest measure. It could—some would say should—have gone a lot further in clamping down on BDS activities, which have the effect not only of undermining the cohesion of UK foreign policy, but of significantly undermining community relations.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Professor Tettenborn: I might have something to say about ECHR article 10. I am not as much of a human rights expert as the gentleman from Doughty Street Chambers—I give way to him pretty willingly—but I do not think that there is a strong article 10 right in public authorities speaking as public authorities. Public authorities are normally the people who get sued for breaking article 10, rather than the people who sue because somebody has stopped them saying what they want. As I read the Bill, it is very carefully drafted to say that if a councillor or a Scottish Minister says, “I think this is a rotten piece of legislation and I think Israel, in any decent society, ought to be made a pariah,” and makes it clear that they are speaking in a private capacity and not officially on behalf of the council, they are in no danger at all.
Francis Hoar: I defer to Professor Tomkins on the international comparisons. In respect of article 10 of the ECHR, there are three stages: first, whether it is engaged; secondly, whether the Bill contravenes article 10, paragraph 1, which concerns whether or not it is a legally enforceable prohibition; and, thirdly, whether the Bill is proportionate.
In some respects, in my view, the Bill does not engage article 10. I do not believe that the power to make investment decisions is engaged by that. On the other hand, statements clearly are. Clearly, the Bill in itself would prohibit the conduct, and it is sufficiently clear for it to be very unlikely that the courts would be forced to interpret the legislation in such a way that was compatible, even if it strained the usual interpretative norms.
So article 10, paragraph 1 does not apply; the question is whether the Bill is proportionate. Dr Harris referred to one recent Strasbourg court decision, Baldassi, which concerned a non-public body. In that case, it was found that prohibitions by the French state on that non-public body were disproportionate. But in the earlier case of Willem v. France, which concerned a mayor, there was no violation. In other words, the criminalisation—the legislation went much further, as Professor Tomkins said, even back in 2009—was found to be proportionate because of the community cohesion point.
That said, I agree with Dr Harris about clause 4. I do not see the need for it. The mischief the Bill is designed to address is divestment, procurement decisions and so on. I do not see why it is necessary to prohibit councils from saying that they would like to divest if they were lawfully able to do so, and even that they intend to do so. As Dr Harris said, if a council passes a resolution that has effect, that is ultra vires. I agree, as I said at the outset, that it is desirable that the United Kingdom speaks with one voice and that public bodies that do not have foreign policy powers do not contravene that, but I do not see the necessity of clause 4.
I do not think the clause would necessarily be disproportionate. The Willem v. France decision in the Strasbourg court suggests that it would be found to be proportionate, and in any event the background fact speaks against disproportionality—if it were to come to a challenge, the background fact is that this is a public body that has no powers in respect of foreign policy—but I do not see the need for clause 4, and I would advise the House to reject it.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Francis Hoar: Yes, of course they can, but as Professor Tettenborn said, that does not stop councillors making them on the campaign stump, and it does not stop the Mayor making them in a personal capacity. I am afraid I do not find that a convincing argument at all.
Alex Norris
Q
Francis Hoar: I have answered that.
Alex Norris
Yes, I think you have addressed that point, but what about the two professors?
Professor Tettenborn: I must admit that I am a little more friendly to clause 4. I will tell you why. It comes out in the old saying that a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse. Sorry, that was a bit flippant, but if you have a statement by a large number of councillors, “We really don’t like it. We’re not saying that we might disinvest from it, and we’re not saying that this is going to influence what we do, but you realise what our views are,” that is going to come across to a lot of other people as being very much the same thing. I gather that that was what this particular clause was getting at. I confess that I am a little less happy about conditional statements, but if a person says, “We would like to do it—okay, it’s illegal, but we would like to do it—but we are not saying we are going to do it,” I think there is a strong case for saying that they should not say that.
One always has to remember that, as Professor Tomkins pointed out, this is not something that criminalises a statement. Basically, something can only happen to you when you make a statement once you have been warned—once you have received a notice: “Oi, don’t say that again.” Now, you might want to challenge the notice or whatever, but that is a relevant feature of the legislation. It is a feature that I find attractive, as against the rather fierce legislation that they have in quite a lot of American states.
Alex Norris
Q
Professor Tomkins: I will make two quick points about clause 4, if I may. First, in my career I suppose I have worn two hats: one as an academic lawyer and the second as a practising politician. What you have heard from the other two witnesses on this panel are legal responses to clause 4, and there is nothing wrong with that at all—I do not mean that as anything other than a compliment—but perhaps a political response to it would be to remind this room of politicians that, in these matters, it is not just what happens that matters: it is also about the optics of what happens, particularly with regard to the undermining of community cohesion.
The Jewish community in Scotland—which happens to be a community that I know rather well, for personal reasons—is a very small community. It is a community that is very easily frightened, not necessarily by things that are done, but by things that are said. If we are serious about protecting community cohesion, and I think the Government are serious about that, and they are right to be, and if we are also serious about maintaining the integrity of British foreign policy, we need to be careful about what is said by people in their official capacities—not as private citizens but in their official capacities. For those reasons I am much more enthusiastic about clause 4 than most of your other witnesses have been.
With my legal hat on, I am certain that there is not an article 10 problem here, because clause 4 is targeted at speech that is uttered only by officials in their official capacity and, moreover, is targeted only at a very narrow range of potential statements, which are statements with regard to procurement decisions and/or investment decisions, rather than, as we heard in earlier sessions, statements that are in their generality critical of Israeli policy or, indeed, of British policy with regard to the middle east. For all those reasons, there is not a legal problem with regard to clause 4, but there is a political imperative behind clause 4, and if I had a vote on the matter, which I do not, I would vote for it enthusiastically.
Alex Norris
Q
Professor Tomkins: I think I am. It is always a delicate balance between what goes into primary legislation—what goes on the face of the Bill, as we say—and what can be done after an enactment by Secretaries of State or Ministers, using the various powers that are crafted by the Bill. The balance that has been struck in the Bill is appropriate and reasonable—yes, I think it is.
Francis Hoar: I think it goes too far in some respects. Generally speaking, Parliament has been too ready—this goes back over many decades and is certainly not just the case under this Government and in this Parliament—to give the Government powers to give devolved legislation, particularly with Henry VIII powers, which the Government accepts there are in this case. I think Mr Cragg KC mentioned the unlimited power of the Minister to order the maximum financial penalty, and there is good reason for the House of Commons to restrict that to a particular maximum.
The particular concern I had was that although, wisely, the Bill does require advance scrutiny of the regulations, there is an exception in clause 3(2) and (5). The Government have given a good explanation as to why they may wish to add a country or territory to the list—the approved list or the disapproved list, whichever way you want to look at it—because, of course, Russia might invade Ukraine, and that is an obvious example. But they have not provided any explanation—certainly not a credible explanation—as to why we need clause 3(2), which includes adding, removing or amending a description of a type of consideration that can be taken into account by a local authority. There is absolutely no reason why that would ever be so urgent as to be needed without the advance scrutiny of the House of Commons. So clause 3(2), in my view, should not have an emergency provision. In clause 3(5), there is a very good reason for that; if the Bill is passed, one accepts the principle, and if one accepts the principle, these things should be able to happen.
Professor Tettenborn: I am entirely with Francis on that one. Certainly, the power to add countries actually is, again, quite skilfully guarded. I think people around this table will have noticed that it is subject to affirmative resolution—that is, it cannot pass merely by everybody not noticing when it is placed on the Table and not objecting to it; it cannot pass by inertia. I think that is a very sound part of the Bill indeed.
Ms Qaisar
Q
Francis Hoar: I have answered this fairly fully, but I think that that encapsulates why I am not convinced about clause 4, although I agree with both my colleagues on the panel that it is not likely to be disproportionate, because it falls within the earlier Strasbourg/French authority. These are public bodies, and there is a good reason why it would be proportionate to restrict them, but you have encapsulated why the provision is pretty useless: because all the Minister needs to say is, “I’m not going to speak on behalf of the Scottish Government.”
Now, I can absolutely see the logical reason why it is a good prohibition, because it is right, on the view of the Bill on this panel—although not among all your other witnesses—which is that the general objective is a sound objective. If that is right, it is fair enough to prevent Ministers in Scotland or Wales from making those sorts of pronouncements. But, in reality, what is it going to do? It is just going to mean that, basically, I will say that I am going to speak in a personal capacity.
Incidentally, on the drafting of the Bill, I am not entirely clear—I agree, again, with Mr Cragg on this—as to the relationship between clauses 4 and 1. Purely from a drafting point of view, that needs to be made clear. If the Government are suggesting that that should not apply to an individual speaking in an individual capacity, there is no reason why the Bill cannot say so. I am just not clear. The wording of clause 4(1) is that
“the person intends to act in a way that would contravene section 1”.
I am not convinced that it applies only if that person has been given a notice. As Andrew said, I do not read that from the Bill. I am not entirely clear what that means. It needs to be clarified as a matter of drafting if clause 4 is to stay.
Professor Tettenborn: I would like a clarification there as well, I must admit. It seems to me that there may be quite an important difference between someone who makes a pronouncement and someone who says something and adds, “but I am speaking personally.” That concerns how we are viewed abroad. It is very good for the conduct of the foreign relations of this country that people abroad know that they can deal with the UK Government as a UK Government. They obviously know that there will be people who disagree with the Government’s foreign policy, but I see nothing wrong in saying that if an official is going to do that, it might be a good idea if they said, “I am speaking in a private capacity.”
Ms Qaisar
Professor Tomkins, do you want to come in?
Professor Tomkins: Yes, thank you. First, this is not a gagging clause. Anybody who thinks it is does not know what a gagging clause looks like. Nothing in clause 4 prevents the current First Minister of Scotland, or any Minister or councillor, from saying whatever they want about the appropriateness of foreign policy, or indeed the appropriateness of policy in a foreign state. The prohibition is simply and narrowly focused on making statements that proclaim that a Minister or a councillor would have decided to do something unlawful if they had been able to do so, which they cannot do anyway. The idea that this is a gagging clause needs to be firmly scotched, if I can put it that way.
Beyond that, I do not have much more to say, except to repeat a point that was made in an earlier session. Councillors should not be wasting their time opining about foreign policy, because it is not their job. Neither should Ministers of devolved Administrations, because it is not theirs either.
Ms Qaisar
Q
The people of Scotland have a strong history of being at the forefront of political campaigns. As was said earlier, Glasgow proudly stood against South Africa’s apartheid in the 1980s. In 2014, the University of Glasgow became the first university in Europe to divest from the fossil fuel industry. Given that public bodies such as universities would now be prevented from taking such a stance, is the Bill compatible with the free speech protections in the European convention on human rights?
Professor Tettenborn: I am sorry; I did not hear what Glasgow University had divested from.
Ms Qaisar
The fossil fuel industry.
Professor Tettenborn: Well, that would not be affected. That is not what the Bill is about. It is far worse, if I may say so, for a public authority in this country to have a foreign policy than for it to have an environmental policy. I know that it probably will not go down very well north of the border in Shotts, but I do not think it is the business either of the Scottish devolved Government or of Scottish local authorities to engage in foreign policy. I have no enormous objection to any public body saying, “We will not invest in fossil fuels.”
Ms Qaisar
Q
Okay. Professor Tomkins, you have spoken about the fact that you were a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and I understand that you are a former adviser to a Secretary of State for Scotland. Constitutional law is your area of expertise, and you have said that you are keen to see this legislation implemented across all four nations of the UK. I am interested in learning a little bit more about what impact the Bill will have on the independence of Scotland’s Parliament and, by extension, our Government in Holyrood.
Professor Tomkins: I do not think that it will have any impact on that at all. The Scottish Parliament is democratically elected to pursue policy objectives within its legislative competence. That legislative competence is set by the United Kingdom Parliament in the Scotland Acts, as amended. It is absolutely clear that that legislative competence does not extend to foreign policy. The Bill has no impact at all on the powers and competences of the democratically elected Scottish Parliament—none at all.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Q
Professor Tomkins: The states in the United States that have pursued anti-BDS legislation have probably gone further than anybody else I am aware of, although perhaps there are jurisdictions that I am not aware of; my research has been restricted to the United States, France and the UK. There would be, I think, significant human rights implications for the United Kingdom, given its commitments under the ECHR, were the UK to pursue the sort of anti-BDS policy that we see in some of those states. I think some significant article 10 issues would arise in relation to that sort of policy. I cannot speak for the Government, but that might very well be why the UK Government have elected not to proceed with that sort of policy.
The approach that the French authorities have been taking is very different, again, from what the present Bill envisages. The French seem to have seen the issue much more as one of public order and freedom of assembly, and are going directly after those who engage in anti-BDS demonstrations and protests in France. What we have in front of us is a Bill that is much more carefully—certainly much more narrowly—targeted on the two specific areas where public authorities in the UK, unfortunately in my view, have engaged in anti-BDS campaigning targeted at Israel and the occupied territories with regard to investment and procurement decisions.
This is not a general “Let’s ban BDS” Bill, or even a specific one with regard to public authorities. It is specifically and carefully targeted at the two core areas where, historically in the UK, public bodies have engaged in anti-BDS activities with regard to Israel when it comes to procurement and investment. Because it is carefully targeted for the UK, my answer to your question is that for the UK this is the best Bill.
Dr Evans
Q
I have a wider question for the whole panel. This is written in the negative, in the sense that it indicates political or moral disapproval for foreign states. Do the panel have any thoughts about writing it neutrally, so that neither the pro nor the anti side fit in? In other words, a public body should not get involved in these kinds of arguments at all. Is that a position you agree with, Professor Tettenborn?
Professor Tettenborn: That is a very good question. Speaking as a professor in an ivory tower, I would immediately agree with you; speaking as a practical man, I would say that you are making a rod for your back if you start imposing abstract legal obligations of neutrality. I think it makes enforcement far easier and life far more difficult for clever lawyers if you do what is done in this Bill: “Thou shalt not say that you disapprove of a particular regime.” I do not think there is a problem of local authorities saying, “We think Venezuela is the best thing since sliced bread, and we will do whatever.” The Bill does answer the mischief.
Dr Evans
Q
Francis Hoar: There is an argument, and you have made it, but I do not think that it is a good enough argument for legislating, because you need to be very careful when you are legislating in respect of what is enforceable. Adam has given some examples of quite extreme—I think very extreme—classically American approaches that go very far down the line in terms of enforcement in another direction, in respect of companies that have or do not have dealings with Israel. To require and enforce neutrality would go far further than is needed. The mischief that the Bill addresses is the divestment campaign, based on political objectives that are potentially contrary to UK foreign policy, and that is where it should lie.
I just want to put down a marker that—if you will allow me, Dame Caroline—I have something to say about legal professional privilege.
The Chair
Yes, but do keep an eye on the clock, because there are two more Members who have indicated that they want to ask a question, and we have only 10 more minutes.
Francis Hoar: Thank you. On legal professional privilege, the answer is not quite as straightforward as has perhaps been represented. I think that the Government’s line is that the answer is in clause 7(9), which is to defer to the data protection legislation. The Data Protection Act 2018 has various provisions that restrict the requirement to provide legally professionally privileged information. For example, schedule 11 has a tailor-made restrictive provision:
“The listed provisions do not apply to personal data that consists of…information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege…could be maintained”.
I think legal professional privilege is extremely important; I entirely agree with Mr Norris about that. Obviously local authorities and other public bodies will be receiving advice on what could be quite complicated circumstances. I think it would be far more straightforward, though, to mirror that legislation in clause 7: you could just add a provision copied straight from paragraph 9 of schedule 11 to the 2018 Act. That is what I suggest that Parliament should do.
Professor Tettenborn: You will get exactly the same answer from me—he has taken the words out of my mouth.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
Professor Tettenborn: That is a very interesting point, if I may say so. There might be a simple way around it: we could have an extra subsection in clause 4 that said, “Nothing in this Act affects the right of any member of a public authority to speak in a private capacity.” Just saying it out loud provides a safe harbour; it means that people do not have to go to a lawyer to look up a law, or at least they do not have to go to so many lawyers. I think that might be helpful.
Professor Tomkins: I share everybody’s concern that we must take freedom of speech very seriously—I think that that is a very important set of concerns to raise—but there are two things to say.
First, what Professor Tettenborn has just described is already the state of the law. The way in which we approach rights under the Human Rights Act is that rights are stated generally, and any exceptions to those rights must be narrowly tailored and stated specifically. If there is doubt or ambiguity, it falls on the side of the right, not on the side of the exception. That is already, in broad terms, the legal position through the United Kingdom—as it should be, in my view. Adding extra words to clause 4 to deliver that effect will not have any effect, because it is already the legal position.
I remind the Committee that clause 4 is very narrow in scope: all it says is that somebody who is subject to section 1 may not say that they would have made a procurement decision or an investment decision different from the procurement decision or investment decision that they have made, by force of this legislation. It seems to me that all the members of this panel are of the view that that is perfectly compatible with article 10 of the ECHR, for all the reasons that we have rehearsed; and if it is compatible with article 10 of the ECHR, it is also compatible, I think, with our domestic standards with regard to free speech. For all those reasons, and notwithstanding the fact that I take free speech incredibly seriously, I genuinely do not think that there is a free speech issue with regard to this Bill.
Wayne David
Q
“the executive competence of devolved ministers”,
and because of that the devolved institutions will need to pass a legislative consent motion. That might be politically contentious; therefore, the Act might not automatically apply to the three parts of the United Kingdom we are talking about. Also, in Northern Ireland, public services pension schemes are exclusively in the hands of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which is not currently meeting. How will it agree a legislative competence order? Presumably, unless the Secretary of State takes powers that are not prescribed in the Bill, this legislation will not apply to Northern Ireland. Would you care to comment on that?
Professor Tomkins: With your permission, I will jump in on that. First, I have to say that the question of legislative consent has got a long way out of control. By that I mean this: absolutely, the United Kingdom Parliament should seek and obtain the legislative consent of the devolved Administrations and devolved Parliaments if the United Kingdom is seeking to legislate on matters which it has chosen to devolve to democratically elected legislatures away from Westminster, but that is not what is happening here—
Wayne David
Q
Professor Tomkins: No it doesn’t.
Wayne David
I just read it out.
Professor Tomkins: No, what you said is that this legislation trespasses on executive competence of Ministers, not on legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. There is not a single aspect of devolved competence on which this legislation touches or trespasses. I do not think there is any question of legislative consent—but it is an unfashionable view these days that this has got out of control in that the United Kingdom Parliament now thinks it needs to seek legislative consent on a whole range of issues that are not actually devolved to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. In my view, on a proper understanding of the scope of the Sewel convention—that is to say, as Lord Sewel would have understood it when he introduced the convention in the House of Lords back in 1999—there is no question of legislative consent on this legislation.
The Chair
We do not have time for another question in the time allotted for this panel. Let me say on behalf of the Committee that we are grateful to our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witness
Andrew Whitley gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Andrew Whitley, chair of the Balfour Project. We have until 4 pm. Would you introduce yourself for the record, Mr Whitley?
Andrew Whitley: My name is Andrew Whitley. I am the chair of the Balfour Project, a Scottish registered charity that advocates for peace, justice and equal rights in Israel and Palestine. We have a particular focus on Britain’s responsibility, historically and currently, for the situation Israel and Palestine. I myself have followed the situation for almost 40 years now, in different professional capacities, including living in the region—in Gaza and Jerusalem—for seven years.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Andrew Whitley: Yes, that is the case, but I think it is difficult to draw a distinction between divestment in certain areas and not others. It is possible to have divestment from Russia over its invasion of Ukraine, for example, and we can refer to aspects of boycotts and divestments that go back to the time of the slave trade. There is a long and distinguished record of being able to use these tools. I am not saying that our organisation advocates for BDS to be applied in this particular case, but we do advocate for the right of others to speak and to say that this is a legitimate tool. What concerns us as an organisation is that this Bill singles out Israel and the Palestinian territories as the sole area in which it applies, and our concern relates in particular to the conflation of Israel proper with the occupied territories in the Golan Heights, the west bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Andrew Whitley: I would not advocate in favour of BDS against Israel per se. I would argue that BDS is a legitimate tool to make a distinction between Israel and the occupied territories. I think that is an important distinction that always has to be maintained. In our view, this is the central flaw in the way the Bill is drafted.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Andrew Whitley: I am not sure that I agree that it creates community friction in this country. I recognise fully that there are those who are concerned about anything that could lead to antisemitism, and that is a scourge that must be utterly condemned, but I am not sure that advocating for BDS does that. It is a legitimate tool of non-violent action to influence a Government’s behaviour when they are committing illegal acts, and the occupation of a foreign country or a foreign territory is an illegal act, whether it is in Ukraine or Palestine.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Andrew Whitley: I would not advocate for boycotts against Israel.
Wayne David
Q
Andrew Whitley: Human rights are universal, and they need to be applied even-handedly and in a systematic fashion; there can be no quarrel or disagreement over that. Any attempt to try to make distinctions over how human rights should apply in one territory or another undermines the authority of those who are attempting to enforce them, and it makes a mockery of the application of human rights if they are applied selectively. I believe it is the responsibility of all citizens, as well as public bodies, to be able to apply ethical, moral human rights considerations in their decisions, and those can apply to political matters and they can apply to other matters. Human rights also cover the provision of shelter, the provision of water supplies or adequate education; these are all basic fundamental human rights. I think it is the responsibility of all bodies in this country to take human rights considerations into account and to apply them in a consistent manner.
Ms Qaisar
Q
Andrew Whitley: I think the impact of the Bill will be to hearten the most extreme nationalistic, racist Government that have ever been in place in Israel. I think that it will cheer Bibi Netanyahu and his Ministers and will provoke divisions within Israel. I should put it on the record here that a large number of sensible, middle-of-the-road Israelis are deeply troubled by the situation in the occupied territories and by their own Government’s actions, including the expansion of the settlements. We should be supporting those people, not the extremist Government, who are inflaming hatred in the country. As far as the Palestinians are concerned, I regret to say this, but I am afraid they will see the passage of this Bill as yet another act of betrayal on the part of Britain.
Ms Qaisar
Q
Andrew Whitley: I am sorry; would you mind repeating the question? I am having a little difficulty hearing.
Ms Qaisar
That is fine; I will also speak more slowly, just in case it is my accent. I was asking if you could clarify how the Bill will impact the UK’s long-standing position on illegal settlements. Would the Bill stop a public body from taking a stance of not buying and trading goods from illegal settlements within the OPT, bearing in mind the settlements are legal under international law?
Andrew Whitley: Members of this Committee will be well aware that the United Kingdom played an important role in the passage of UN Security Council resolution 2334 in December 2016. That is the last and most important resolution that refers to the absolute prohibition on the building of settlements in the occupied territories. As the UK supported that law, I would hope that it would take action to be able to continue to defend its implementation, which has been sadly lacking. Certain forms of pressure, I believe, are appropriate to encourage changes of behaviour, because there are many, including many Israeli friends of mine, who would argue that only through the exercise of meaningful pressure by Governments who can have influence over Israel is it likely to rethink its direction. I think that would certainly apply to the continued expansion of settlements, which are making a two-state solution impossible.
Ms Qaisar
Q
Andrew Whitley: It will not have a direct impact on our work. Our focus, as I said at the beginning, is on educating the British public and encouraging the British Government and decision makers in the United Kingdom, including Members of Parliament, to act in a way that upholds Britain’s historical responsibility. We believe that Britain has an important responsibility, not just as a legacy from the past, but today. We think that the passage of the Bill, if it has the effect that many argue it will have—to chill free speech and to prevent arguments that there are legitimate non-violent tools that can be used to encourage a change of behaviour on the part of Israel—would be deleterious to our work.
The Chair
I am mindful of the fact that we have to conclude this part of the session at 4 pm.
Wayne David
Q
Andrew Whitley: The lip service to a two-state solution continues, but I think there is a great deal of make-believe—or perhaps deliberate pretence—on the part of those who say that a two-state solution is still viable. It is looking increasingly impractical. If I can quote the words from the UN resolution—I was a senior UN official in the region for many years—the UN calls for “a sovereign, contiguous” Palestinian state. That is not the case at the moment and it is highly unlikely to be the case. The difficulty is in facing up to the alternatives, which are considered unpalatable. Members of the Elders delegation, Ban Ki-moon and Mary Robinson, who visited two months ago said that, to date, we are living in “a one-state reality”—not a one-state solution, but a one-state reality. That is what needs to be addressed.
It may be that the Government are privately edging away from their commitment while maintaining the rhetoric of support for a two-state solution. There are certainly hard choices to be made. However, from my personal perspective as someone who has followed the spread of these settlements for 40 years and seen the number of settlers grow from 50,000 to 700,000 in that period, it is increasingly difficult to see that it will actually transpire in that way.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. May I thank our witness on behalf of the Committee? We will now move on to the next and final panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Mark Beacon and Rozanne Foyer gave evidence.
The Chair
We have until 4.30 pm for this session. Could the witnesses start by introducing themselves for the record?
Mark Beacon: My name is Mark Beacon. I am an international officer at Unison. Unison is the largest trade union in the UK, representing 1.3 million workers working in public services. Although our members are UK-based, we take a very keen interest in and recognise the importance and value of working collectively internationally to uphold human rights and workers’ rights. That is one of the key reasons why the Bill is of interest to us.
Rozanne Foyer: My name is Rozanne Foyer. I am general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. STUC is Scotland’s federation for trade unions. We have over 600,000 members in Scotland.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Mark Beacon: Unison has consistently advocated for a two-state solution—for a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel. We support boycott, divestment and sanctions as a method to put pressure on the Israeli Government to bring about peace and a viable two-state solution. In terms of the work we are talking about here around pension fund engagement and investment, we have been calling for the local government pension scheme to begin the process of divestment from companies on the United Nations list of business enterprises involved in and with the illegal settlements, and to begin the process of time-limited engagement with other companies that are contributing to violations of human rights. Of course, our focus is very much on the Occupied Palestinian Territories and upholding human rights and international law within that context.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Mark Beacon: If you look specifically at our work on this, it is very much targeted at the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We are focusing on companies that are contributing to a grave violation of international law and breach of the Geneva conventions. It is also worth adding that BDS is not something we have used exclusively in the context of Palestine and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. You can look to examples such Myanmar and Western Sahara and, historically, countries such as South Africa. It has played a big role. Trade unions throughout the world use it. When it comes to boycott, divestment and sanctions—mainly divestment in this case—what we do is listen to the calls of our trade union partners around the world and ensure that what we are doing is reflecting their demands in these areas.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Rozanne Foyer: The STUC has a long-standing policy of support for a peaceful two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. We also have, since 2009, supported BDS as a policy and a campaigning method. Basically that has been part of our international campaigning for decades, not just in relation to Israel. Fifty years ago we supported Rolls-Royce workers who refused to repair the aeroplane engine—[Inaudible.]
The Chair
Rozanne, I do apologise. We are struggling to hear you. Do you have a microphone available that you could plug in?
Rozanne Foyer: No, I do not.
The Chair
It is quite difficult to pick up what you are saying. You do not have a headset?
Rozanne Foyer: No, sorry, I do not.
The Chair
As long as the Committee is content to carry on. Sorry, I apologise for interrupting you; I just wanted to see whether we could improve the sound quality.
Rozanne Foyer: I will try to speak closer to the monitor to use the microphone in there.
The Chair
That is a bit better.
Rozanne Foyer: Through the 1980s, we played a key role in the anti-apartheid movement. Boycott, divestment and sanctions also played a key role in that movement. The trade union movement in Scotland was quite instrumental in encouraging local authorities such as Strathclyde and Glasgow City to take steps to support Nelson Mandela. That was at a time when he was still considered a terrorist by the UK Government. I just want to make the point that, generally, support of that type of activity is something that our movement has been involved in.
In 2009, we sent a factfinding delegation to Palestine. It talked to all parties—Israeli trade unionists and Palestinian trade unionists—and produced a report. On the back of that report, we agreed a policy of boycott, divestments and sanctions against the Israeli state. The aim was to create pressure to end Israel’s illegal occupation and establishment of settlements classed as illegal under international law. It was also to campaign against the violation of the human rights of Palestinians by the Israeli state as defined by the United Nations. We worked with our affiliates to support BDS strategy and we produced guidance on it in 2019. Our BDS policy is fully supported by the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions.
In 2022, the STUC supported a delegation from Dundee Trades Council to Palestine, which met again with both Palestinian and Israeli trade unionists. Following the reports received from that delegation about the situation on the ground for workers, and the continued human rights violations of Palestinian workers, the STUC Congress reaffirmed its policy to support BDS in 2023. We are not formally affiliated with any BDS movement, as you described it, and we do not wish our support for BDS to be interpreted as blanket support for any of the policies or views of other bodies or organisations that might identify with the wider BDS movement.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Mark Beacon: We do not see this as an issue about foreign policy or local authorities having a jurisdiction over any form of foreign policy. What it is about is public bodies upholding internationally recognised norms regarding human rights, labour rights and international law.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Mark Beacon: If you look at the situation now and how it has eroded and if you look at the plans of the current Government—the coalition agreement, for example, has a section in it that focuses on annexation of huge swathes of the west bank—Palestinian society is in a very difficult position at the moment, because the prospects for peace and a viable two-state solution sadly seem to be diminishing. We hope that international pressure and voices from the trade union movement and other civil society organisations will raise that up the international agenda and bring about more realistic prospects of a viable two-state solution.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Mark Beacon: Of course, it takes many small steps. In local authorities, we are talking generally about a response to the requests or concerns of members of pension schemes. Local authorities and pension committees take on those legitimate concerns of members on how investments are made, and act on those. A single local authority will of course not make a massive difference, but if that is taking place across the UK and internationally, it will add to pressure and encourage the UK Government to take a stronger position on some of the issues.
The Chair
Five Members have indicated that they would like to ask questions, and we need to conclude by 4.30 pm—just so everyone is aware.
Ms Qaisar
Q
Rozanne Foyer: It is really concerning. Based on what some of the other expert panellists have said today, I have to say that I fundamentally disagree with some of them, particularly Mr Tomkins’s assessment of devolution. We need to understand the point of view. This is not about local authorities or devolved Government setting foreign policy; this is about procurement policy, democracy and taxpayers’ money. It is arguable that with the anti-apartheid movement, Glasgow City Council started a wave that the UK Government and the rest of the world eventually had to listen to and go with. I believe strongly that democracy starts on the ground with the people and moves up from them. The Bill centralises reserved powers. It does the opposite of devolution and of giving power to the people. That is really concerning. With the Bill, we would certainly not have got to that position, and that important work that happened in the ’80s would not have been able to take place.
My member is a member of the pension scheme, and has a democratic right in workplace democracy to have a say on what happens to their reserved pay. It is their money that sits in the pension scheme. They have a right to have a say in how that money is spent and to ensure that it is spent ethically. My members are citizens of local authorities and pay their taxes to local authorities and to the Government. They have a right to demand that their local authority and Government adhere to human rights policy, and adhere to the best standards of employment policy and of policy on procurement. Procurement is devolved, and so are human rights, so are things like economic development. It is not as simple as saying that these devolved authorities cannot talk about, or make policies that relate to, foreign policy. What we are talking about here is procurement policy and how citizens’ taxes and pension moneys are spent. As far as I am concerned, the Westminster Government and the Secretary of State have no business in telling us how to do that.
The Chair
Just to interrupt very quickly, Rozanne, we are struggling to hear you and Hansard is struggling to pick up what you are saying for the record. Please can you do whatever you can to speak as loudly as possible into the microphone to try to help us?
Rozanne Foyer: I will do what I can.
Ms Qaisar
Q
Mark Beacon: Not really, apart from the fact that I do not think many people would look back now on the actions that local authorities took around the anti-apartheid movement—their involvement in action against apartheid —and the investment and procurement decisions they took and say that that was wrong. Of course, we are now in a situation in which procurement is far greater; in the UK, we are talking about public bodies procuring up to £380 billion of goods and services. It is amazing to think of the positive impact that that procurement could have internationally if public bodies were to utilise it to encourage companies to uphold the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, for example.
Ms Qaisar
Q
Mark Beacon: Yes, it will. If you look at Unison’s international work, we work as a key part of Public Services International, which is the global trade union federation for public service workers, and we campaign on a wide range of international issues. Palestine is one of our priorities at the moment, but there are also Turkey, Brazil, Colombia, and business and human rights. We work on Zimbabwe and a range of other issues. As public service workers, that is really important. Our members will be very concerned about, first, how their pensions are invested and, secondly, procurement decisions and the impact that they have internationally. For example, uniforms and PPE—those kinds of issues—and where resources are acquired are major issues. It is the same for members of the public, who will share some of those concerns. The Bill prevents us from acting on those where there is a potential for political or moral disapproval of the policy or conduct of a public authority in a foreign state. It is extremely far reaching and will infringe on quite a lot of our work.
Ms Qaisar
Q
Rozanne Foyer: Trade unions have been using these policies, as I said, for quite some time in a range of situations. I think that we would want to be able to continue to operate in that way. It is an important part of our democracy that our members and citizens are able to influence public bodies and elected officials at all sorts of levels. It is very important. One of the things for which trade union members in Scotland campaigned for a long time was a Scottish Parliament, and another big concern for us is the way that devolution to that Parliament is being potentially undermined by this piece of legislation. That is another area where we have some key concerns about this Bill.
Wayne David
I apologise if the speakers have already touched on this; I did not pick up everything that was said from Scotland. Mark, you have written a very detailed paper, and I thank you for it. One of the very important points you make in that paper is the fact that public bodies in Wales and Scotland are already obliged to follow ethical practices with regard to employment, for example, and need to take into account human rights considerations. My concern is that the Government have perhaps not fully appreciated that fact. This legislation, which will apply—so they tell us—to all parts of the United Kingdom, does not take into account what already exists, and it might inadvertently cut across or undermine existing regulations. Is that your view? If it is, can you say a bit more?
Mark Beacon: Yes, we share those concerns. Some positive work is taking place in Wales around procurement, primarily focusing on labour rights but branching out into other areas. Again, there is some positive work in Scotland and, I believe, in Northern Ireland. We are deeply concerned about the impact that the Bill will have on that work in devolved nations, particularly considering that both investment and procurement are devolved responsibilities. When we look at areas such as labour rights, which are obviously fundamental to us, and at exceptions in the schedule, they are very narrowly defined. They are primarily focused on areas around modern slavery and so forth, and there are references to the minimum wage as well, but they do not go anywhere near meeting the International Labour Organisation core conventions. Areas such as child labour, equal remuneration, the right to collective bargaining, freedom of association and so forth are not referred to at all in there, so it will undermine that work.
Rozanne Foyer: We have a range of devolved policies in Scotland that relate to our Fair Work First approach to commissioning and contracting. We do not have devolved employment law, but we have an extensive range of guidance and benchmarks that we expect all contractors who want to get public money to adhere to. The Scottish Government also has a vision for trade that sets out fair work indicators as well. Although we cannot implement laws, because employment law is not devolved, we fully use our right to implement and use the money as leverage. I believe that is a very legitimate way to create a landscape of better employment rights and good practice, both domestically and internationally, and that work would be severely undermined by the current proposals.
In terms of the other area I think could be really undermined, we must remember that in Scotland we have a Parliament where just over half of the representatives—the majority of representatives—support full independence. It would be legitimate and in the public interest for citizens and members of the public to know and understand what the Scottish Government might choose to do in the context of independence if they had the power to have particular international procurement policies. It is very disturbing to me that clause 4 of the Bill might well prevent that sort of debate or announcement from taking place. At the moment, the Scottish Government are producing a series of papers that look at the detail of what an independent Scotland might look like. The STUC does not have a policy on independence, but you can bet your bottom dollar that we are looking very closely at what the potential proposals might be and thinking about how they might impact our members. I would not like the Bill to preclude the Scottish Government from making us aware of what their intentions might be.
Chris Stephens
Q
Mark Beacon: Absolutely not. It is phenomenally weak in terms of the exceptions. If we start with international law, there is a requirement in it that basically violates the UK’s obligations under international law rather than considering, for example, that the activity of a company might be contributing to a violation of international law, so that section is extremely weak. There is a total absence of any reference to human rights within the exceptions there, which is of deep concern, particularly as you do not have labour rights without human rights. Then, for the reasons I have mentioned, the section on labour rights is extremely weak—not meeting those ILO core conventions, which are the absolute basic minimum enabling rights for workers.
The Committee might want to look at areas around procurement and the activities of organisations like Electronics Watch, which I believe Crown Commercial Services is affiliated to, that look at areas like electronics and mining and how you can get better practice in procurement in those areas. On environmental concerns, again, we are concerned that there is that double threshold there: not only must it be environmental misconduct, but it has to violate the law as well. There are plenty of exceptions to that, such as in issues around the pollution of watercourses or around logging or deforestation, where the conduct or policy of a public authority permits that to go on.
Rozanne Foyer: I will not say too much on this. I think that the points were very well made there. The ILO conventions missing is the most disturbing feature here for any sort of credible nod to good employment standards. The fact that they are not there is incredibly disturbing. It is not going to help us take forward environmental agendas. It is not going to help us take forward ethical or human rights agendas or labour rights agendas on an international basis. It is a travesty if we cannot use all of our public bodies to help us push that agenda forward.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
Q
Mark Beacon: When it comes to workers’ rights or the situation of workers within the illegal settlements, it is an area we have done substantial work on. We support and provide funding for a trade union called Ma’an, an Israeli trade union, to help them organise workers within the illegal industrial zones. It highlights phenomenal challenges there. Workers are paying extraordinary fees to labour brokers. They are being paid beneath the Israeli minimum wage. They are consistently not getting their labour rights under Israeli law. Health and safety is appalling and so forth.
We also support Kav LaOved, the workers hotline—again, an Israeli NGO—to support and educate workers and campaign for them in the illegal agricultural areas in the occupied west bank. Again, we see the same labour problems there, major health and safety problems, particularly involving people picking dates and the injuries they face, being dumped at checkpoints with injuries and so forth, and major problems with child labour.
The quality of that work is not amazing by any means, and there are major problems, but the other issue is the impact that those settlements have on the prospects of a viable—
The Chair
Order. I am sorry to cut you off mid-flow, but that brings us to the end of the allotted time for the Committee to ask questions. On the Committee’s behalf, I thank all our witnesses today, particularly the last two, for all their evidence.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jacob Young.)
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 7th September 2023
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 September 2023 - (7 Sep 2023)
The Chair
I had not thought that there would be any need for a private session, but one Member has something that he wants to raise, so I think we should have a very brief private session. However, I should point out that the time that we take up by sitting in private will eat into the time for the witnesses.
The Committee deliberated in private.
Examination of witnesses
Jonathan Turner and Steven Barrett gave evidence.
The Chair
I apologise to the witnesses and members of the public who are attending today, for allowing them in before unfortunately having to ask them to withdraw while we sat in private. There was an issue that the Committee wanted briefly to discuss before we went into the formal, public part of the proceedings.
We will first hear evidence from Jonathan Turner, the chief executive of UK Lawyers for Israel, and Steven Barrett, a barrister at Radcliffe Chambers. I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick rigidly to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has already agreed. For this panel we have until midday. Could the two witnesses briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Jonathan Turner: I am Jonathan Turner, chief executive of the organisation UK Lawyers for Israel and a barrister.
Steven Barrett: I am Steven Barrett. I am a barrister; I write sometimes in the press on law, and I occasionally appear in the media on law.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Before we begin, may I say for the sake of transparency—I do not think that this is a fully declarable interest—that Steven Barrett is known to me as a councillor in Buckinghamshire?
Richard Hermer: For the sake of transparency, I am a Conservative councillor in Buckinghamshire unitary authority. That will not form part of any of the evidence that I give to this Committee. I am a parish councillor in Chepping Wycombe, but that role is not party-affiliated.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
Q
Jonathan Turner: Yes, I would. I would go further and say that it has the beneficial effect of securing the UK’s compliance with international law, particularly with World Trade Organisation agreements, which impose restrictions on the UK central Government and a very wide range of public bodies. The Bill and its enforcement will ensure that activities or decisions of subordinate public authorities will not put the UK in breach of, particularly, the Government procurement agreement, which is part of the World Trade Organisation collection of agreements.
Felicity Buchan
Steven?
Steven Barrett: Yes, although I hesitate to reply on that because complying with international law is a political position. What I would perhaps like to make clear and explain to the Committee is our constitution and how we work. It is really important that this is understood. It was clarified recently by the Supreme Court, so we are back to now understanding the constitution, and we have a unique relationship with international law. If you wanted, we could all go to the British Museum and look at some 2,500-year-old international law—in fact, it is older than that. There are great masses of it. Absolutely no legal jurisdiction in the world makes all of it binding on that jurisdiction.
If you take a European-style constitution after the war, it will use a constitutional court to choose which bits of international law it wants and does not want. It makes it the job of its judges and courts to do that. When we were in some constitutional confusion after coming out of the EU, I wondered whether that was the system that we would use, but what then happened was quite clear.
You may all remember the Northern Ireland case about the impacts of the protocol on the Acts of Union: it went to the courts, and the courts very clearly said, “No, this is not for us.” We are clear that we do not have a continental-style system in which a court can break international law or exit it for us. We have a system where you deal with it. This Parliament deals with international law, and we draw a line that we call incorporation.
Incorporated international law is binding upon us. You will all remember Miller 1 and the fuss that the Government had where they pretended that they could get out of the EU without passing an Act. No! The part of international law that made up the EU was incorporated international law. To get rid of incorporated international law, they had to use an Act of Parliament. If it were unincorporated, that would be entirely different.
That is the line that we draw. It is really important that people start remembering it. We have not really needed to know about it since the ’60s. In his speech clarifying this, Lord Reed, the President of the Supreme Court, was very forgiving: he just called it a misunderstanding that had arisen. I like to call it a confusion, because nobody should feel guilty about this: these are bits of the constitution that we have not had to wield for decades. How was anybody supposed to know instantaneously that when we left the EU, this was what would happen? But that is what happened.
It is the role of Parliament, not Government, to control the operation of international law, and you do that through Acts of Parliament. This Bill is lawful—of course it is—because it is simply a mechanism for doing that. In his most recent note, I note that Mr Hermer concedes that. The only relevant part to come out of a lawyer’s lips is whether you can or cannot do something; whether you should or should not is entirely for you. He says that you can, and I think that that is enough from any lawyer.
The Chair
Given the constraints on time, I will bring in other members of the Committee. If there is time at the end, I will bring the Minister back in.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Jonathan Turner: Most of his advice, I think, is wrong. I have set out detailed reasons why his opinion that was published and circulated at the time of Second Reading was wrong, but I would like to take the opportunity to address the note that he sent round last night, because I am afraid to say that it is still wrong.
One of the points that he made before claimed that this Bill would effect a profound change in the autonomy of local government. That is just not correct: there are existing, very substantial restraints on the autonomy of local government when it comes to procurement and investment. Some of those will be replaced by the Bill and some will continue, but it is simply not the case that this makes a sudden and enormous change. He has accepted that section 17 of the Local Government Act 1998 effected a substantial restriction on local government bodies, but he has ignored—even though I have sent him two emails pointing this out—the EU legislation, which effected a very substantial restriction.
He goes on to say that the Local Government Act applied only to local government bodies, not to other public authorities, but the EU legislation applies to a very broad range of public authorities. The regulations implementing the EU directives in England and Wales and Northern Ireland are to be repealed by the Procurement Bill, which is in its final stages. It does not affect the regulations implementing the EU directives in Scotland, which will apparently continue in force; the memorandum from the Scottish Government to the Scottish Parliament suggests that that will continue to be the case.
The position is that this Bill effectively replaces that EU legislation as far as England and Wales and Northern Ireland are concerned, within its terms, in relation to territorial matters. What the Bill really does—the most important aspect of the Bill—is transfer a matter that was regulated by EU law into a matter that is regulated by national law, and set out the national law governing this particular matter. It is part of the Brexit agenda of, if you like, taking back control: you may agree or disagree with the decision that the British people made, but it was made. A major part of the function of this Bill is to replace pre-existing EU-based legislation with UK- based legislation, together with the Procurement Bill.
Wayne David
I hope so, too. I just want to ask your advice. Is it appropriate for a witness to this Committee to give evidence in the form of attacking another witness who does not have the opportunity to respond to those comments because he is not here? Surely a witness should be giving positive remarks about why something should be done, rather than criticising another witness.
The Chair
It is an interesting point, but it is not a point of order for the Chair. It is in the hands of the witnesses themselves to give their evidence in the way that they think most appropriate, and if that involves commenting on evidence that we have already heard, it is certainly acceptable for them to do so. You might not like it—
The Chair
But it is the system. I am going to move swiftly on now. A number of Members have indicated that they want to take part. I call Alex Norris.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
“would cause a reasonable observer of the decision-making process to conclude that the decision was influenced by political or moral disapproval”.
Are you content with the phrase “reasonable observer”? Do you think it is tight enough? Could it be clearer?
Jonathan Turner: Yes. “Reasonable observer”, or “reasonable person”, is used throughout English and Welsh law and so on. It is the basis of the law of negligence. You interpret contracts with reference to how they are understood by the reasonable person. In legislation, similarly, and in lots of other documents it provides an objective test, instead of looking at the subjective intention of the maker of a statement. That has the benefit of greater certainty and greater clarity, which is why it is used.
I am very happy with it being the formulation that is used. I do not think that there is any problem with it at all; I think it is the best way of doing it. You would have terrible difficulties if you tried to do things in terms of the subjective intention of people adopting the decision.
Alex Norris
Q
Steven Barrett: It is not likely to be tested, because it is quite a settled test. It is a legal mechanism for taking subjectivity and turning it into objectivity, which is what law does—and which is why when I speak in public on law I have the unique and remarkable opportunity to annoy everyone. It is an acceptable test and I would not worry about it. The courts are familiar with it.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Q
Jonathan Turner: Certainly parts of it are necessary. Otherwise, you have the Leicester City Council type of approach of saying, “We are supporting boycotts. We want goods from a particular territory to be boycotted as far as the law allows.”
That is deeply problematic. First, it has the same impact on community cohesion as any other BDS measure that targets a particular country and indirectly targets a particular ethnicity. Secondly, it creates a degree of confusion and difficulty for the staff who have to implement it: they have to work out what the law does allow in terms of boycotting, they have to find out what the facts are, they have to go to the lawyers, and there will be arguments about it. The whole thing becomes a mess and discourages them from accepting certain tenders. They are further discouraged by the fact that they might offend some of the councillors who were so vehement about passing the measure. It has a chilling effect on the public authority and the staff who are left dealing with it. That is what I see as the primary target of this provision.
As to whether it conflicts with human rights requirements: no, it does not. It only binds public authorities. It does not stop individual members saying, “I support BDS. I don’t like what such and such a state is doing.” It only stops a public authority saying that. Public authorities, as we know from the House of Lords decision in the Aston Cantlow case, do not have human rights under the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act. I think that is why they have chosen to do this by reference to section 6 of the Human Rights Act and its definition of “public authority”.
The Chair
Mr Barrett, is there anything you want to add?
Steven Barrett: No, because I cannot answer the necessary question because I think that would be a personal and political opinion. I can say that it is lawful and that I agree that it would not breach article 10.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Q
The Scottish Government oppose the BDS campaign, but also strongly discourage trade with companies active in the Occupied Palestinian Territories—an occupation that was recognised as illegal under international law and by the UK Government. How would you both respond to the concerns people have that the Bill effectively condones what many would regard as illegal occupation?
Jonathan Turner: First, I do not accept that it is an illegal occupation. Many international lawyers will say that the settlements are illegal. This is based on article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention, which prohibits a state—an occupying power—from transferring part of its population into an occupied territory. But conducting a business is not transferring population.
It is not just me who says this. The Supreme Court said it in Richardson v. Director of Public Prosecutions. It said that conducting a business in the west bank does not make the private operator of a factory a person who is promoting the transfer, by the state, of people into occupied territory. Running a business is not transferring people. It is sloppy thinking to say that the settlements are illegal. Companies operating in the vicinity of settlements do not normally operate in residential areas anyway; they normally operate in trading estates outside the residential areas. It is sloppy thinking to say that operating the factory, selling the goods or buying the goods is illegal under international law. It is not.
Steven Barrett: All I would say is that what you think about the situation in the middle east is a personal political opinion. As law, it is important that we get back to a healthy relationship with international law, which is understanding the role of incorporation and your role in controlling the flow of international law into this jurisdiction.
When the President of the Supreme Court corrected this for us lawyers, presumably to pass on to people like you, he speculated that it might be because we are so used to the EU. For 40 years, EU law was supreme here, which meant its being in charge. That meant that Ministers could be told, “No, Minister, that policy is illegal,” or “No, Minister, you cannot do this.” That has been going on for so long that many of us, simply by a form of muscle memory or attachment to that, are used to groping for some legal reason not to do things.
Now the EU has gone. International law has never been supreme; it is not supreme anywhere, and it has certainly never been supreme here. So you—all of you, collectively—need to come to terms with the power and responsibility that you have. If you think something about the situation in the middle east, or if you think something else about the situation in the middle east, you must sort it out. We will use democracy as a mechanism for settling the issues and seeing what the voters think, but that is the system that we have, and it is very important that we operate in it.
Really the only important part of Mr Hermer’s statement, which I saw this morning, is where he says, “You can do this.” Honestly, that is all you need to know. But groping around for just a resolution of the UN, which is a pretty weak source of international law anyway, and then looking at its wording and trying to say, “That means you can’t pass an Act of Parliament here”—no. That is constitutionally eccentric.
If somebody will allow me, I do have drafting concerns about the Bill. I do not know whether we will get to those, but I would like to raise them if I can.
The Chair
We are running rapidly out of time, but there is an opportunity for one very quick question.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Q
Steven Barrett: Yes. Mr Hermer actually flags them himself, and he is right. Paragraph 6 of the schedule is a constitutionally unique event. Given everything that I have said and explained to you here, we have never recognised all international law as binding. On my reading of that paragraph, it seems to me an extraordinary statement. If you do not amend that, I seriously suggest—well, I would just get rid of it, to be honest, because it is giving supremacy to international law. It is conceding the power that the voters gave you and giving it to this great, great mass that is thousands of years old. People will be able to reach into the great mass that is international law and pluck out everything. You could probably pluck out bits that contradict the other bits. They will be able to pluck or draw out something to justify whichever boycott they want. The people who are motivated to do boycotts are very strongly motivated to do them. They will use that paragraph.
I also think that they will use paragraph 4 on finance, which is just a bit woolly. I think it could be tightened up. I would be very happy to help with the drafting; I might write a note after this, if that would assist anybody. I am always happy to help Governments of any colour. Should the Government change, I will be happy to help—on law only.
I wanted to raise those two issues. Paragraph 6 in particular is really a constitutional aberration. It gives away your sovereignty to a great, amorphous entity that is not properly controlled. At least the EU had structures and was under control. If you think of international law as like a territory, it has carved out a space for itself and it is stable. The rest of international law is not stable.
The Chair
On behalf of the Committee, may I thank the witnesses? I am sure it has been quite a probing experience for you, but even if individuals might not agree with the advice that you have given, I think they respect the fact that it was given in good faith and comes from a base of knowledge that is very helpful.
Examination of Witnesses
Yasmine Ahmed, Dave Timms and Peter Frankental gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Yasmine Ahmed: I am Yasmine Ahmed, the UK director for Human Rights Watch.
Dave Timms: I am Dave Timms. I am the head of political affairs at Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Peter Frankental: I am Peter Frankental, economic affairs programme director at Amnesty International UK.
Chris Stephens
Q
Yasmine Ahmed: Yes, I certainly agree with that. Essentially, what we see is that the Bill is going to restrict the ability of public bodies—a wide definition, as you know—to carry out their human rights due diligence responsibilities under the UNGPs. They have those responsibilities and international obligations, and what the Bill does is wholly suffocate the ability of public bodies to carry them out.
Essentially, the Bill does that by saying that a public body is not able to take account of the human rights record of a state, or companies operating within a state that is carrying out human rights abuses, except in specifically exempted cases. As we know, and as has been highlighted to you in previous evidence, the specific exemptions have significant loopholes, but even leaving those aside, there are still international crimes and human rights violations that are not caught. I will give you an example: suppose I am a public body and I want to stop investing in a military company that is supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia and UAE that are being used to commit war crimes in Yemen. This Bill will stop me from being able to do that. We know that the Bill will mean that public bodies cannot carry out and adhere to their due diligence responsibilities.
Something that is extremely pernicious from our perspective is that the Bill will have a significant chilling effect on public bodies. If I am a public body, what incentive do I have to do appropriate due diligence—both environmental and human rights due diligence? If I do that and something arises, and then one of the enforcement bodies imposes a notice on me that requires me to send all the information I have about the decision I made, given the fact that the Bill is so ambiguously worded that it only needs to be “a consideration”, how am I to know that I will not be penalised? As a public body, I would not be in anyway incentivised. The Bill runs a coach and horses through ESG responsibilities, human rights responsibilities and due diligence responsibilities.
I know the Government have consistently said that this is about public policy and ensuring that public bodies do not carry out their own foreign policy. What the Bill actually does is stifle public bodies and the Government from carrying out their own responsibilities and, on the face of it, complying with international law. It is totally inconsistent as well with their own business risk guidance and the implementation of their own UNGPs. It is a hammer through that. Anyone who tells you that it is not has not adequately read the Bill.
Before I hand over to my colleagues, I would just say that I am a lawyer who has been working in this jurisdiction for a number of decades now, and I can say that I have never read a piece of legislation that is as badly worded as this. It is ambiguous and runs a coach and horses completely through ESG responsibilities and business and human rights responsibilities. I think it is a very pernicious and worrying piece of legislation, and I am very happy that the Committee is seized of the matter.
The Chair
To the other two witnesses, it might be helpful in terms of our time constraint if you could initially confirm whether you are happy with the evidence already given, and if not, please say so. Secondly, could you raise any additional points that you do not think have come out in the first response? I hope that is clear.
Dave Timms: I agree entirely with Yasmine’s comments. Hopefully we will get to talk specifically about the environmental implications, but I would add to her answer the pernicious way clause 1 is constructed and the impact that will have on civil society organisations going about their reasonable activities to try to create environmental or social change. We have heard a lot of the witnesses say that it does not have gagging implications or free speech implications, but the actions of civil society organisations and members of those decision makers are drawn in by the nature of clause 1 and subsection (7), which talks about “any person seeking to persuade the decision-maker”.
This is the state impinging on the activities of civil society organisations that are trying to achieve meaningful social change and trying to ensure that their money, their local authority or university is not complicit in driving destructive human rights or environmental activity. In that sense, this is a direct attack on the ability of civil society to go about the activities we would consider to be legitimate.
Peter Frankental: I totally agree with Yasmine and David. Public procurement in the UK, according to the OECD, accounts for 14% of GDP. That is enormous potential leverage to incentivise ethical business. That leverage is largely being lost because of the disincentives that Yasmine referred to. Let me give you one example of why the disincentive is so great. If a public body—say, an NHS trust—were to decide not to tender with a company in Malaysia, or a contractor in the UK that sources from Malaysia, and source rubber gloves from a factory that had been linked to human rights abuses, that would implicate the state of Malaysia. Under international law, states have a duty to protect, and that means holding companies accountable. If a company is involved in human rights violations or labour rights violations, the state has to some extent failed in its duty to protect, so disapproval of foreign state conduct is invoked. I do not think that the public bodies will want to go anywhere near giving effect to their human rights due diligence findings, because the risk and cost to them would be too great.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Yasmine Ahmed: As a matter of principle and policy at Human Rights Watch, we do not take a position on BDS. What we do say very clearly is that individuals, and whoever wants to, have the right to engage in BDS. It is part of their right to freedom of expression, association and assembly.
Dave Timms: For us, the position is exactly the same.
Peter Frankental: We do not take a view on BDS either, but we support the right of people to advocate for BDS. Can I just expand on that a little bit? More widely, we see the situation where human rights advocates and human rights defenders all over the world are delegitimised and stigmatised because of their human rights advocacy. All kinds of pretexts are given for this, such as offending public morals, being disloyal to the state and—as in this particular case, with this legislation—racism and antisemitism.
There is no reason in principle why any human rights advocate should not advocate for the human rights of Palestinians or criticise the human rights record of the state of Israel, and they should not be tarred with the brush of racism or antisemitism. That is a very dangerous road to be going by. If that approach is taken, will human rights advocates who draw attention to human rights violations of the Rohingya in Myanmar and the track record of the Government of Myanmar be accused of being anti-Buddhist? Will those who criticise the human rights record of the Indian Government with regard to the treatment of minorities be accused of being anti-Hindu? What of those who criticise human rights violations in the Gulf states? Anyone who advocates for BDS, which is a peaceful, non-violent means of achieving change and holding Israel accountable for human rights violations—Israel has enjoyed a considerable degree of impunity over the years—should be able to do that without being tarred with the brush of racism or antisemitism.
Felicity Buchan
Q
The Chair
It is an agree/disagree question.
Dave Timms: I am afraid that I completely disagree with the assertion that there is any protection whatsoever for fossil-fuel divestment campaigns. We are extremely concerned about the chilling effect that the Bill could have on those. You have said that fossil fuels are not specifically mentioned, but I am afraid that the Minister does not have the ability to say what is excluded because of the construction of the first clause, which mentions
“a reasonable observer of the decision-making process”.
In fact, the Department’s own delegated powers memorandum, in terms of contracting with suppliers, talks about being “affiliated with certain countries” and divestments from “organisations” that are affiliated “with certain countries.” So if we are talking about divestment of fossil fuels from, say, Saudi Aramco, Equinor, Petrobras, Gazprom or other companies that are highly associated with a foreign Government, we think that will be brought very quickly into the remit of the legislation.
Also, as I said before, because it bites on the way people go about campaigning, and all the statements made during that, you will often see arguments for fossil fuel divestments being couched in terms of getting off fossil fuels because of the damage of climate change, but also because of the record of particular regimes. Those decisions could very quickly be blocked by this legislation. So I see no reassurance whatsoever that it would not have a significant impact on fossil-fuel divestment.
Nor do we take any reassurance at all from the exemption around environmental misconduct. It applies only to illegal environmental harm, yet so much environmentally destructive activity is conducted lawfully. We can look at something like the due diligence discussions that happened during the Environment Act, where the limitations on reporting on illegal deforestation were revealed because so much of the deforestation due to soy in somewhere like Brazil happens entirely lawfully. Or you can take something like Indonesian palm oil, where the legal status of land is extremely complicated and it becomes almost impossible to determine what land conversion has happened legally or illegally. How can a local authority or a public body possibly be expected to navigate that kind of complexity? What they will do is say that this legislation blocks them. So I am afraid that I do not accept your point.
The Chair
To use the same approach I advocated for the previous question, if the two other witnesses want to concur with or dissent from the response that Mr Timms gave, could they say so and perhaps raise any additional points that they think would be helpful to the Committee?
Yasmine Ahmed: Yes, I wholly concur with what Dave said. I would just add that first, as Dave noted, it has to be illegal. Fossil fuels, not necessarily the extraction of fossil fuels, are not illegal—that has been well covered. What about a situation where there are dual considerations? We see many situations where deforestation happens, for example, and there are attacks on indigenous communities and human rights defenders. What happens then? Is that caught by the Bill or not? As I mentioned, there is a litany of other human rights abuses and international crimes that are not captured by the Bill, so the exemptions are certainly by no means exhaustive. The very point that I would argue is that the Bill cannot, because the whole point of the Bill is to stop public bodies being able to carry out their due diligence responsibilities effectively.
Peter Frankental: I concur with Dave, but I want to add one point on the exemptions. The vast majority of cases reported of companies abusing human rights are not litigated—they are not subject to civil or criminal litigation; they are exposed by the media or by non-governmental organisations—so the exemptions defined in terms of breaches of law are unlikely to apply and no public body would feel confident in using the exemptions unless there has been a legal case. In so many jurisdictions, the law either is not in place or there is corruption or weak regulatory systems. The independently commissioned report on modern slavery by Frank Field, Baroness Butler-Sloss and Maria Miller drew attention to the very weak regulatory systems in the UK for implementing the Modern Slavery Act, so any reliance on the law will put public bodies in a very weak position.
Alex Norris
Q
Dave Timms: You could increase the scope of that exemption, but you would still be left with all the problems that have been pointed out. You could have the environmental misconduct exemption extended to any environmental issue or any issues surrounding environmental harm, or include anywhere that there is a breach of international environmental treaties or agreements, but that would still leave you with the problem that Yasmine pointed out: the fact that in so many cases, environmental problems are related to human rights abuses. Look at logging in South America, where there is a high degree of overlap with human rights abuses; you would not be able to do it. You also would not be able to deal with the problem you have in clause 1, which is that any activity from civil society would be dragged into this as well. Often environmental organisations such as Friends of the Earth will campaign around concerns that overlap the environment and human rights. You might be able to chip away at the damage, but it is really hardwired into this from the start.
We have some experience of dealing with the kind of language in clause 1, which talks about a “reasonable observer”, because it is really similar to the chilling effect caused by the language in electoral law that bites on third-party campaigners, where you must have regard to what is reasonably intended to influence voters. That has had a huge chilling effect, which has been documented by parliamentary Committees, on the activity of civil society in campaigning on legitimate issues around election periods. We have seen language like this: it has been drafted in a way that is vague, and language similar to this has been shown to have a chilling effect on the activities of legitimate civil society organisations trying to achieve legitimate aims.
The Chair
Does anyone have anything to add to that? No? Okay. I will come next to Dr Luke Evans.
Dr Evans
Q
Yasmine Ahmed: What is very clear is that our organisation says that public bodies have to discharge their responsibilities under business and human rights of the UNGPs, and they have a responsibility to comply with international law. That is the very point that we are trying to make here. Let us set aside BDS, because what the Government are doing with this Bill is stifling the ability of public bodies to discharge the Government’s own responsibilities and obligations under the UNGPs and under international law. That is what this Bill is doing. That is the effect of the Bill and that is the problem with the Bill.
I wholly agree with Peter’s position on BDS, as does Human Rights Watch, and the right of individuals and the importance of people being able to advocate for the rights of Palestinians as they advocate for the rights of other individuals, but that is not what we are talking about here, because the effect of this Bill—actually, the crunch of this Bill—is that it stops the Government complying with their own responsibilities and international obligations.
Dr Evans
Q
Yasmine Ahmed: What I think, as I have said, is that when a public body is making financial decisions on procurement investment, it should take account—it has to take account—of the human rights and environmental implications of what it is doing. That is the answer.
The Chair
Q
Peter Frankental: I will just add that a decision by a public body not to procure with a tenderer should not necessarily be seen in terms of BDS. It is not necessarily a boycott; it is a means of effecting due diligence. If it is done in a way that is proportionate and on a case-by-case basis, as the vast majority would be, I would not see a problem with it.
I will just add something from the Government’s impact assessment of the Bill. It is made absolutely clear in the impact assessment that there is no definitive evidence linking public procurement and investment to discrimination on grounds of race, religion or belief. That is set out in three paragraphs of the impact assessment—paragraphs 60, 61 and 64. So, the main premise behind this Bill, that it is necessary to prevent public bodies from engaging in antisemitism, is not compellingly evidenced, according to the Government’s impact assessment.
Only one procurement case is given, that of Leicester City Council, which took a decision not to procure with Israeli settlements. That was challenged in the courts on grounds of a breach of the public sector’s equality duty, and the Court of Appeal found that Leicester City Council had not breached its equality duty, was not being antisemitic and was mindful of community cohesion, and that its decision not to procure from settlements was based on a respected body of international opinion, including the UN, the EU and the UK’s own policy on not recognising the settlements as legal. It is perfectly possible for public bodies to take these decisions without that being seen within the sweeping form of BDS.
The Chair
Thank you. Two more people have indicated that they want to ask questions. In order to save time, I will take the two questions and then perhaps the witnesses can determine between themselves who will answer them.
Ms Qaisar
Q
The Chair
I will bring in Brendan Clarke-Smith now for his question, and then you can share the answers between you.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
Thank you for your input today. You mentioned that people may be subject to equalities claims with the way the law is at the moment. Do you not feel that having a clear policy on this, both nationally and in terms of foreign policy, can protect local authorities if they diverge from it? That is why this Bill makes the picture a lot clearer for local authorities and avoids that situation where they may put themselves under threat and in breach of equalities laws.
The Chair
I do not know who wants to take on the two questions. I will leave it to you.
Peter Frankental: Sorry, I could not hear the first question. Could you please repeat it?
Ms Qaisar
It was to ask what impact the Bill will have on the UK’s relationship with those in the occupied territories and with Palestinians here, across all four nations, who wish to exercise their freedom of expression so that the actions of the Israeli Government can be held to account.
The Chair
Mr Frankental, will you tackle that one?
Peter Frankental: I will begin with the second question. Sorry, I did not completely hear the first question. On foreign policy, I do not believe that procurement decisions that are taken on the basis of due diligence engage foreign policy at all. That is a human rights or environmental due diligence matter.
Yasmine Ahmed: To add to that, if you are talking about trying to give certainty to public authorities, what this Bill does is create complete uncertainty. The UK’s business risk guidance and the UNGPs say something completely contrary to what this Bill says in terms of being cautious, considering your human rights and environmental responsibilities, and doing adequate due diligence, and in terms of the UK Government’s position on the occupied territories and particular settlements within them. How we provide clarity to public bodies is a really important question. This Bill is certainly not the way to do it, because it provides much more uncertainty.
I am happy to attempt to answer the other question, if that is helpful. What the Bill means in relation to people in occupied territories is a really good question. I might expand on it slightly to say that from an international relations perspective, we should be thinking about a Bill that combines and excludes activities in Israel within the green line and the occupied territories. I am being very clear about what that says in relation to what the UK Government are saying about the Russian occupation in Ukraine, and the crimes that are being committed in that context.
It is a really important question because we should be thinking about community cohesion from both sides of the coin. What the Bill essentially says is that advocating for divestment from Israel, where Israel is committing crimes and a company is implicated in those crimes or human rights abuses, is wrong because it is linked to antisemitism. The other side of the coin—as you rightly say—is about what that does for Palestinian groups advocating for their rights, and the community cohesion between the two groups. A lot of the Jewish communities we have been engaging with have said, “We do not want our name associated with the Bill, because we are not saying that antisemitism is linked to the crimes and abuses that are being committed by Israel.”
It is very clear that there is a problem of antisemitism in this country; you just have to look at the statistics. However, the way the Government should be approaching the issue, if they were properly thinking about it, is through the equalities duty, education and speaking to communities. They should not be creating a law that is going to create many more problems, provide impunity, and undermine their business and human rights responsibilities and international obligations.
The Chair
Thank you very much. I am afraid we have reached the end of this panel. I thank the three witnesses for the open and frank way in which they have addressed the questions raised by Committee members. We are grateful to them for being here today.
Yasmine Ahmed: Thank you so much.
Dave Timms: Thank you.
Peter Frankental: Thank you.
Examination of witness
Richard Hermer KC gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Richard Hermer: Good afternoon, Sir George, and members of the Committee. My name is Richard Hermer. I am a barrister, as you have said, at Matrix Chambers. My areas of expertise most relevant to this Committee are in public law and international law, including international humanitarian law. I advise and represent a wide range of individuals, companies and, indeed, Governments, and I lecture on those topics both here and abroad.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Richard Hermer: Good afternoon, Minister. Of course, law imposes on all decision makers—be it local authorities or public bodies—a range of restrictions through law on their decisions, whether it is a purchasing decision or any other type of decision. That is what the legal framework does. I have identified in the two written opinions why aspects of this Bill are unprecedented in respect of its impact on human rights and international law. I agree with you as a matter of generality, but I disagree with you, Minister, as to this particular Bill.
The Chair
I am not going to bring the Minister back in. We have only 15 minutes for this session.
Chris Stephens
Q
“effectively equates the OPT with Israel itself and is very difficult to reconcile”
with Britain’s support for a two-state solution. Will you expand on those comments?
Richard Hermer: Yes, of course. The manner in which the Bill does that is it affords a unique protection to just one category, which is Israel, the occupied territories and the Golan Heights—one protection from being placed on the list of exceptions—whereas any other country in the world can be placed on the list of exceptions and therefore subject to adverse economic decisions by public bodies through the fiat of the Secretary of State or the Cabinet Minister. That power is denied to the Secretary of State or Minister in respect of anything to do with Israel, the occupied territories or the Golan Heights. It is accorded a special status, and that can only be changed by primary legislation. In that sense, it separates out Israel and the OPT from the rest of the world.
Wayne David
Q
Richard Hermer: Yes. I am mindful that we have only 15 minutes, probably now 10. Can I just give you a brief framework, because I think I have to disagree with the outline that Mr Barrett gave you? International law has always been key to this country, and very broadly speaking it operates on two levels. The first is on the international plane. That is our obligation to comply with international law at the international level. Secondly, in so far as it has been incorporated into English domestic law, the Government have to comply with it on a domestic level.
It is the international law level that I flagged up first in my written advice. As a country, we have always played a leading role in upholding and, indeed, creating international law. Both main parties have a proud history of that. It has fallen into slight disrepute in more recent times as we have had some legislation that expressly seeks to avoid our international law obligations, but generally speaking, that is something we can be proud of. There are two aspects in which that is relevant: first, because the Government have contended that this does comply with our international law obligations, and secondly, because the Committee will no doubt wish to ascertain whether it in fact does or there is a risk that it does not. I hope that answers your question, Mr David.
Dr Evans
Q
Richard Hermer: There are some examples of American states passing what I would describe as more extreme versions of this. France is interesting because the Strasbourg court has looked at France on two occasions and the most recent one upheld that its laws were incompatible with article 10. There is not much else out there by way of example. Israel has its own laws on BDS. I am not sure where that takes us. Ultimately, Parliament has to look at this Bill on its face. How it stands up in comparison does not tell us anything about international law—it might help with the context, but beyond that, I am not sure that it would necessarily help the Committee.
Ms Qaisar
Q
Richard Hermer: I am firmly of the view that it is incompatible with article 10 of the European convention on human rights, which is incorporated into our law via the Human Rights Act. I have listened carefully to the views of others, not least the way that it has been explained by the Minister, and I respectfully disagree.
There are two elements to this. First, who does it bind? There is no dispute that it does not bind a public authority per se, but it would undoubtedly bind a leader of a council or a vice-chancellor of a university—that is, the full array of public authorities or bodies acting as a quasi-public authority. Certainly, it is incapable of engaging the free speech of those individuals. Secondly, there is an analogue to the free speech of the individual in article 10, which is also the right of the public to have information. This engages article 10 in both those ways.
Once we have engagement of article 10, it then falls to the Government to justify it under article 10(2) I have set out in my first opinion the text of article 10(2). There are a number of hurdles that a Government would have to pass. We should also remember that this is not just in the context of BDS; this is in the context of any country and any conflict. I set that out in paragraph 34 of the opinion that the Labour party published. In order to establish that there was no breach of article 10, it would need to be shown that the restrictions were necessary
“in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
It is almost impossible to see how there could be a justification here. As matters stand, this would be deemed incompatible with the Human Rights Act.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
Q
Richard Hermer: No, I do not. In the human rights movement, there are lots of campaigns that focus on one particular country. For example—and I do not wish to be trite—if you look at the Rohingya, we are targeting Myanmar. If you look at what is going on in Yemen, most of the campaigning is around Saudi Arabia. You can pick examples from all around the world.
Undoubtedly, the BDS movement, as it is known, focuses on Israel. But often human rights campaigns focus on individual counties, because it is often individual countries that are committing human rights abuses. From a legal and human rights perspective, I do not feel that there is a need for additional protected status—all the more so, if I may say, in respect of the occupied territories and the distinction that is drawn there. I find that, on all sorts of levels, very hard to understand.
Wayne David
Q
Richard Hermer: I think I set out quite a few in writing. First, clause 1 could be taken to mean something entirely different to that which I think the Government intended—to just focus on particular territorial disputes rather than, more generally, the human rights record of a company.
I am afraid that, again, I disagree with Mr Barrett about the dangers of the “reasonable observer”. In some areas of the law that is a common phrase. But here, if the Bill proceeds, it is a pretty binary question: have you offended the Act and taken into account considerations that you should not, or haven’t you? I do not understand what the test of reasonable observer adds beyond uncertainty and, potentially, injustice. On that analysis, you can have no intention to break the law, but a reasonable observer may nevertheless consider that you did. The vagueness there is potentially very troubling. There are also the other examples I have put out in writing.
Obviously, a great deal of oxygen has been taken up on BDS, and one can understand why that is. But I would stress—as I hope I have done in writing on two occasions—that the impact of the Bill extends across the whole panorama of human rights and this country’s engagement with human rights, not just one particular incident. It engages not simply what local authorities can do, but the full range of public bodies in this country.
The Chair
Thank you for the brevity of your responses, which enabled us to get a lot more questions in than I had anticipated in such a short session. It has been very helpful. Thank you very much.
Examination of witness
Melanie Phillips gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Melanie Phillips: I am Melanie Phillips. I am a British journalist and I spend much of my time these days living in Israel.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Melanie Phillips: Many people, pretty understandably, draw a distinction between criticism of Israel and antisemitism. However, my view is that what we are all talking about when we talk about concerns over the way Israel is treated in public discourse is not criticism but a unique campaign of delegitimisation and demonisation.
Now, it should not follow that, even if you demonise the state of Israel, British Jews get it in the neck. But it is a fact—it is on record—that every time the public prints are full of not just criticism of Israel’s behaviour but a presentation of Israel in which it is a unique human rights abuser in the region, attacks on British Jews, both verbal and physical, go up. So there is in practice—whatever the reasons you may adduce—a complete connection between the two. In my view, that is not really surprising. For many people in this country and elsewhere, their understanding of Judaism, the Jewish people, Jewish history and the connections between all those things and the land of Israel is extremely limited. Many people do not understand how intimately Jewish identity—Jewish religious identity—is wrapped up with the land of Israel.
For all those reasons, a boycott movement that stigmatises Israel, singles it out for treatment afforded to no other country and identifies it, therefore, inescapably as a unique evil in the world must have an impact on the Jewish community.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Melanie Phillips: Yes. A statement of intent is clearly no more or less than that, but the evil of a statement of intent is that it is a statement of delegitimisation—a statement that Israel is uniquely evil, that it uniquely requires this kind of approach. Therefore, any Jewish person in Britain who supports Israel is deemed to be fair game, and any Jew is deemed to be fair game because people assume, rightly or wrongly, that they identify with Israel.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Q
Melanie Phillips: I think there is no contradiction between the two. As you say, the Bill is the fulfilment of a manifesto commitment. The manifesto commitment is a broad one, and the Bill is a broad one, as you heard from your previous witnesses. There are exemptions of different kinds, and the particular exemption you are talking about, which singles out Israel, is done for a particular reason: in a Bill that deals generally with boycotts, there is one boycott that stands out as unique, which is the boycott movement against Israel. It has characteristics that do not apply to any other action taken against any other country, group or cause. In the view of the Government, and I agree with this view, it is a uniquely evil impulse, designed uniquely to destroy Israel as the Jewish state—as the Jewish homeland—and with malign potential repercussions on the Jewish community. Consequently, because it is a unique situation, it requires a specific exemption, as it is so bad that it cannot be ever thought that it could ever happen.
Wayne David
Q
Melanie Phillips: I am certainly concerned about China. And, by the way, thank you very much for the compliment—flattery will get you everywhere. I am concerned about China, and I would like and prefer our Government to take a stronger view about China—a stronger approach to China. But that is not really the point at issue here; the point at issue here is that it is for the Government to determine foreign policy—I may disagree with that policy, but it is for the Government to determine it. If local authorities or public bodies—bodies taking public money—go off on a frolic of their own and boycott China, Saudi Arabia or whoever, you have a kind of anarchy, and you cannot have that. To me, that is the issue.
As I understand it from what Ministers have said and from my reading of the Bill and these exemptions—obviously, you realise I am not a lawyer—the Bill allows public bodies who take a view that the procurement decision they are being asked to take would involve the use of Uyghur slave labour in China to use the exemptions to not go down that procurement road. But the exemptions are limited to a number of areas that the Government have deemed to be on the right side of the line when it comes to saying that it is for the Government of the day to determine foreign policy, which I think is a sensible rule for the Government of the country.
Nicola Richards
Q
Melanie Phillips: I do not think the Bill itself seeks to make tensions worse or better, but it is a fair question to ask whether it will have that effect both here and in Israel and the disputed territories. The fact is that people who advocate boycotts of Israel over its behaviour in those territories, which classically involve targeting companies that have a presence in them, believe that this is hurting Israel. Well, it does, but the people it really hurts are the Palestinian Arabs who work for these organisations and companies. They have said over many years that they wish that the west would not go down this road. It is a disaster for them when it goes down this road. They and their families depend for their livelihoods on these companies. Boycotts are performative from their point of view—they are performative virtue signalling, which not only does not address the political challenges and difficulties that they believe they have but actually takes away their livelihoods. So this hurts them, and it does nothing about community divisions in these areas, because a state of—whatever you like to call it—war, insurrection, permanent threat of terrorist violence and so on engulfs this area, and Israelis are being killed, or there are attacks intending to kill them, literally every day. This does not affect that at all. What it would do, in my view, as I have said already, is make the situation of British Jews worse—it would affect it very badly. It would increase community divisions here; it would increase suspicion, aggression and division between the Jewish community and the non-Jewish community here.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Q
The Chair
Before I ask you to respond, I will bring in Steve McCabe and, with your forbearance, ask you to perhaps answer both questions together.
Steve McCabe
I think my question was the same. You said that the Bill would benefit from amendment. I wondered what you had in mind.
Melanie Phillips: As I have said before, I am not a lawyer, and I really would not presume to say what amendments there should be. I would suggest that all Bills, as I am sure you know better than I do, are susceptible to amendment and would benefit from amendment. When I wrote what I wrote, I was really reflecting that I had seen various people make various observations about things they thought were not right. I do not know whether that is right or not, but I am absolutely sure that there is scope for amendment. Consequently, I would hope that the Bill would be amended for the better. That was really the only thing I was trying to get at.
The Chair
Thank you. I would like to thank the witness for her characteristically forthright responses, which have been very helpful to the Committee. I would also say that, in my experience—I am sure you share it—it is as well to take compliments wherever you can get them. With that, thank you very much for your attendance. We are very grateful.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jacob Young.)
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 12th September 2023
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 September 2023 - (12 Sep 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I have a few preliminary announcements. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. I remind people to switch electronic devices to silent, please. Tea and coffee are not allowed during the sitting.
The selection list for today’s sitting, which is available in the room, shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. The selection list shows the order of debates; decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates.
The Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in a group will be called first. Other Members will then be free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in the group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of the debate on a group, I will again call the Member who moved the leading amendment. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or to seek a decision. Any Member who wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote needs to let me know.
Clause 1
Disapproval of foreign state conduct prohibited
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out
“must not have regard to a territorial consideration”
and insert “must not act”.
This amendment would remove the reference to a “territorial consideration” in the legislation.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 31, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out from “that” to “influenced” in line 7, and insert “is”.
This amendment is to probe the use of a subjective, rather than an objective, test to establish whether a decision-maker has contravened clause 1.
Amendment 23, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment would remove the reference to a “territorial consideration” in the legislation.
Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out “or territory”.
This amendment clarifies that considerations for the purposes of section 1 must relate to the foreign countries, rather than territories within foreign countries.
Amendment 32, in clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 20 to 22.
This amendment is to probe the impact of the legislation on individuals, such as those working within public authorities.
Clause stand part.
Ms Qaisar
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George.
Antisemitism is on the rise across the UK and the globe. It is a disgusting stain on society, and something must be done to eradicate it completely. There must be strong and meaningful legislation to tackle it so that Jewish people feel and are safe. That is something that I and my SNP colleagues want to see, but frankly it is also something that people across the House want to see. Sadly, however, the Bill is not an appropriate approach.
Last week we heard from Yasmine Ahmed, the UK director of Human Rights Watch, who said:
“I have never read a piece of legislation that is as badly worded as this. It is ambiguous and runs a coach and horses completely through ESG responsibilities and business and human rights responsibilities. I think it is a very pernicious and worrying piece of legislation”.––[Official Report, Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2023; c. 86, Q124.]
The Bill is in need of significant amendment to tackle some of the fundamental flaws in its current form. Some clauses need to be scrapped altogether. The language in clause 1 creates ambiguities around the objectives of the Bill; it is so poorly drafted that it is difficult to determine what the Bill seeks to accomplish. Of particular concern is the phrasing relating to “a territorial consideration” in clause 1(2). As drafted, it could be interpreted in such a way as to focus the Bill solely on limiting disagreements among decision makers on territorial matters, rather than on the foreign and domestic actions of foreign states. That means that if a decision maker were to make an investment or procurement decision based solely on the domestic actions of the foreign state that did not relate to a territorial issue, the view could be taken that it was not covered by the Bill.
In written and oral evidence, Richard Hermer KC explained that if a decision maker refused to buy goods from China based only on its track record on human rights, they would not be covered by the Bill. If, however, the same person refused to buy goods from China because of its forced labour impacting cotton in Xinjiang, that decision would be covered by the scope of this Bill. That interpretation of clause 1 creates obvious issues around the Bill’s applicability. We therefore ask the Government to accept amendment 22.
Clause 1 also seeks fundamentally to reduce the autonomy of local councils and the devolved nations to take a stance on human rights matters. The measures that seek to remove the ability of local government to take a stance based on the political and moral actions of a foreign state mark a dangerous step in reducing autonomy to speak out in support of human rights. Political discourse in debates over foreign policy matters to everyone. It is legislated here in Westminster, but it enriches society when people are involved in the discussions. Central Government sit upon policy, legislation and agenda, but it is a cornerstone of democracy that people at a localised level be able to have discussion and debate around human rights, which is inevitably linked to foreign policy.
I am not calling for foreign policy to be set by local government, but as a society we benefit when local government makes decisions based on human rights. We saw that in the 1980s, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West and I brought up repeatedly last week. In 1981, Glasgow City Council stood up against apartheid in South Africa. Glasgow was the first city in the world to award Nelson Mandela the freedom of the city. Five years later, St George’s Place in the city centre was renamed Nelson Mandela Place. In 1993, Nelson Mandela visited Glasgow. In the city chambers, he proclaimed:
“While we were physically denied our freedom in the country of our birth, a city 6,000 miles away, and as renowned as Glasgow, refused to accept the legitimacy of the apartheid system, and declared us to be free.”
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
As a Scot, I am very proud of the actions of Labour-led Glasgow City Council in changing the name of St George’s Place and in being the first city to give Nelson Mandela freedom of the city. I have looked at the Bill, and I cannot see anything in it that would have prevented Glasgow City Council from doing that; I agree that there are things in it that have a chilling effect on local government and public institutions, but I am not quite clear how relevant the hon. Lady’s reference to the Bill is.
Ms Qaisar
Essentially, I want to talk about the impact that a local government can have when people at a localised level can outline how they feel about human rights records. This Government should take heed of that, because at that time it was Thatcher’s Government who imposed sanctions on apartheid South Africa and maintained close links with political leaders in apartheid South Africa.
I have tabled a number of amendments to clause 1. I have spoken at length about amendment 22. Amendment 31 is intended to probe the use of a subjective rather than objective test to establish whether a decision maker has contravened clause 1. In reality, there are so many amendments that could be made to clause 1. That is not just my view; we heard it from numerous witnesses during our evidence sessions last week and from multiple organisations that have submitted written evidence. The Minister should really go back and start from scratch.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir George, and to speak to amendment 3, which stands in my name.
We have now moved to the short but important process of line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, which is itself short but important, with just 17 clauses and a schedule. In the high-quality Second Reading debate, we saw the significant strength of feeling among Members across the House. Frankly, there was not an even party political divide, which always makes things a bit more interesting. I suspect that colleagues’ mailbags, like mine, have been full of strong views from their constituents.
On Second Reading, the Opposition tabled a reasoned amendment setting out our significant concerns about the Bill, which very much start with clause 1. It is a long-standing Opposition position that we do not support boycott, divestment and sanctions-type activity against the state of Israel. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly said on Thursday, we are implacably imposed to it. I cannot improve upon that sentiment, which is also the view of the Government. It should not have been hard, if that was what the Government wanted, to build consensus around a proportionate set of regulations that would tackle the issue. Instead, clause 1 and the Bill generally are needlessly broad, with sweeping powers and far-reaching effects. Whether consciously or not, that has created an undesirable degree of division.
The Opposition do not think it wrong, in itself, for public bodies to take ethical investment and procurement decisions, given that there is a long history of councils, universities and others taking a stance in defence of freedom and human rights. After all, it is local ratepayers’ money, and it is reasonable for them to want a say in how to spend or invest it. Similarly, the money in a pension fund belongs not to the Secretary of State but to its members, so it is reasonable for members of funds, through their trustees, to wish to express their views on how the money is invested. We know that that is also the Government’s view, because they have carved out a wide range of exceptions in the schedule. It is clearly not in debate that there ought to be a degree of local say on such activity.
However, it is important to say, at the start of our line-by-line scrutiny, that there is a significant difference between legitimate criticism of a foreign state’s Government and what some have sought to do in recent years. There are those who have sought to target Israel alone, hold it to different standards than others and create hostility towards Jewish people in the UK. That is completely wrong, and we fully support efforts to tackle antisemitism in this country. However, this solution is not sufficient. In its unamended form, clause 1 will go far beyond what we are seeking to resolve and will create a series of problems along the way.
My amendment 3 seeks to clarify the ambiguous wording that a public body may not have regard to a “territorial consideration” when making procurement and investment decisions. As the then shadow Secretary of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy)—and I asked on Second Reading, is that supposed to mean that public bodies may refuse goods from a nation state such as China because of a general disregard for human rights, but may not refuse cotton goods from a territory such as Xinjiang state because of concerns about genocide of the Uyghur population? Or does it mean, as I suspect it may, that all actions of all foreign Governments are beyond the scope of local decision makers unless excepted in the schedule? Perhaps it is illustrative of where we are in the process of reviewing the Bill that that remains in doubt. We have seen doubt in the written evidence, and obviously doubt was felt at Second Reading, too. We need greater clarity in the Bill.
My amendment 3 is a probing amendment. I will not seek to divide the Committee on it, but I hope that it will provide an opportunity for the Minister to give clarity. I think we know that the Government mean that it is not territory-only boycotts that are out of scope, but rather that all boycott-type activity, where it disapproves of foreign conduct, is out of scope. I hope to hear that from the Minister.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts. My amendment 3 would have the same effect as her amendment 23 and is similar to amendment 22, so the same arguments stand.
I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about amendment 31. It relates to the important debates we had in our evidence sessions about the reasonable observer test, which I struggled with a little. When I asked the witness panel about that, we heard slightly mixed evidence. I was willing to accept it as a term of art which would be well known to the courts and therefore not likely to provide another issue for litigation, but that point seems to be in doubt. I hope that the Minister can be clear about why this approach has been chosen.
I have no doubt that this legislation is heading straight for the courts. That was obvious from written and oral evidence and the Second Reading debate, and it will be obvious throughout our line-by-line discussions. Our debates in Committee will be germane to court proceedings as well, so it is important to have the greatest possible clarity in the Bill and in our discussions.
Finally, amendment 30 relates to a matter that I shall address in detail when we debate clause 4 stand part.
Conceptually, the Bill stands up and is easy enough to understand when we think about public bodies as entities in their own right. However, it swiftly starts to disintegrate when we consider that those entities are made up of a person or persons. I thought that there were some admirable logical gymnastics on that point from the Minister during our evidence sessions. She said that on one day a person might be a councillor, a trustee or a Mayor, and thus the decision maker, but that on another day, in another context, they might no longer be and would therefore not have their freedom of expression fettered. I am not sure that that is credible, but I suspect that the Minister will want to speak to that point, so I hope to hear some greater clarity on it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George, with other hon. Members from all parties. The Bill is an important piece of legislation that has been brought to this place to fulfil a manifesto commitment to ensure that the UK speaks with one voice internationally, and to promote community cohesion within the United Kingdom. We have 17 clauses and one schedule to discuss in four sittings.
Amendments 22 and 23 would remove the references to “territorial consideration” from the Bill. I am not sure that this is what the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts intended, but the amendments would broaden the scope of the Bill. In its current form, the Bill will prohibit only territorial considerations
“that would cause a reasonable observer of the decision-making process to conclude that the decision was influenced by political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct”,
but the amendments would mean that when a public authority is making a procurement or investment decision, all considerations influenced by political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct would be captured, not just territorial considerations—unless, of course, they were also excluded in the schedule.
The condition of “territorial consideration” in the ban means that the Bill only bans certain boycotts or divestments that “specifically or mainly” have regard to a country or territory. It does not currently, for example, prohibit public authorities that have an environmental policy for their procurement or investment decisions that is universal rather than country-specific. The amendments would arguably prohibit such policies, which is not the intention of the Bill.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend accept that if the amendments are agreed to—obviously colleagues have proposed them on a sensible basis to probe the intention of the Bill—one of the risks, given that there are all sorts of territorial claims all over the world, is that countries that are occupying territories might be brought into scope if this change is made? The reality is that it should be the foreign policy of the Government that determines whether such decisions are taken, not individual authorities.
Felicity Buchan
I completely agree that foreign policy should be determined by Government. I would like to point out the definition of a territorial consideration in clause 1(3):
“A ‘territorial consideration’ is a consideration that relates specifically or mainly to a particular foreign territory.”
Foreign territory is defined in clause 1(5) as
“a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.”
For the avoidance of any doubt, “territorial” does not apply simply to territories; it also applies to countries.
Amendment 3 would exclude “territory” from the Bill’s definition of a foreign territory. In his evidence to the Committee, Richard Hermer KC raised a concern about the term “territorial consideration”, and I understand that the hon. Member for Nottingham North has tabled the amendment to address that concern. I have already explained the importance and purpose of territorial consideration, so I will not repeat it. I understand that Mr Hermer’s concern is that the terminology indicates that the clause applies only where there is a territorial dispute, but that is not the case. As Jonathan Turner noted in evidence to the Committee, there is nothing in this wording that suggests that the clause will apply only where there is a territorial dispute. If that is the reasoning behind the amendment, it is unnecessary.
Unless I am mistaken in my understanding of the reason for the amendment, it seems to be intended to attempt to reduce the scope of “territorial considerations” in the ban. In other words, it appears to intend for public authorities to be permitted to have regard to considerations relating to a territory when making an investment or procurement decision, even if that decision is influenced by the moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but there are difficulties with the drafting of the clause, and one criticism is that it seeks to apply a subjective rather than an objective test. However, will she clarify the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham North? The disapproval of foreign state conduct, which the Bill refers to, includes disapproval by individuals and by public organisations collectively, but it would also apply to individuals in such organisations. Will the Minister therefore outline the Government’s intent, because there is some confusion about the way the Bill is drafted?
Felicity Buchan
I will go on to address that, but to give the hon. Gentleman a simple answer now, if an individual is talking on behalf of a local authority, that is captured by the Bill. If a council leader makes a statement on behalf of the local authority, that is captured. If a councillor, or indeed a council leader, makes a statement but is not representing the local authority, that is not captured. The issue is whether it is “on behalf of”.
Chris Stephens
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. Let us be clear: a council leader or any councillor who is being interviewed by a journalist or on television would have to say, “This is my personal opinion. I am not speaking on behalf of the local authority,” and would have to hope that that was not edited out before the interview hit the newspapers or the television. There is a bit of difficulty around this issue. Given the Minister’s answer, I wonder whether the Government could go away and look at the clause, because I think they will find themselves in great difficulty on this issue.
Felicity Buchan
I was going to explain that, but I will give the condensed version: we will put it into the explanatory notes. We will give further clarity in those notes.
Amendment 32 could cause confusion about whether the ban may or may not be breached as a result of the political and moral disapproval of individuals who make decisions on behalf of a public authority. The drafting of the Bill clarifies the position: where an individual makes a decision on behalf of a public authority, that will be seen as the public authority’s decision, so the public authority will be subject to enforcement action, not the individual.
The Bill needs to be clear that decisions that involve disapproval by individuals who make a decision on behalf of a public authority are in scope; otherwise, it would bring into doubt situations such as a council voting for a local authority to conduct a boycott or indeed any decision taken by a group that makes decisions for a public authority, such as a board or committee. The ban would be ineffective and easy to circumvent if such decisions were not covered.
It might also be helpful if I explain how the ban affects individuals. Anyone acting in an individual capacity is not caught by the ban in clause 4 on making a statement of intent to boycott or divest, unless the individual is making that statement on behalf of the public authority. I gave the example of the councillor. I know that that has been a point of confusion for members of the Committee so, as I said, I will clarify the point in the Bill’s explanatory notes.
In addition, when an individual or groups of individuals make a decision that is caught by clause 1, or a statement on behalf of a public authority caught by clause 4, the individuals are not personally liable: the public authority is. The public authority would be the subject of any enforcement or court action. In evidence to the Committee, Dr Alan Mendoza confirmed that that position is laid out clearly in the legislation and that the European Court of Human Rights would agree. The Government remain strongly committed to the UK’s long and proud tradition of free speech and to article 10 of the European convention on human rights.
I hope that that reassures the Committee, especially in the light of the additions to the Bill’s explanatory notes. The scope of the Bill is strictly limited to the actions of public authorities, and only affects individuals when they make statements or take action on behalf of public authorities. Therefore, for the reasons that I have set out, I respectfully request that the amendments be withdrawn.
Ms Qaisar
Amendments 22, 31, 23 and 32, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West and me, include probing elements, as well as changes to the legislation, because on the face of it the Bill simply does not make sense. As I said in my opening statement, that is not just my opinion, but the opinion of various different organisations in written and oral evidence. The Bill is so poorly drafted.
The Minister took a lot of time to talk about clause 4, but at this point I want to concentrate on clause 1; we will come to clause 4 later. The Bill will have an impact on the autonomy of local authorities. For years, indeed for decades, local authorities and local councillors at the very local level—I keep using “local”, because that is vital—have played a role in the protection and promotion of human rights. It is important for that to be protected.
The Bill, if passed, will have an impact not only on local authorities but on universities, which is vital because they play an essential role: they gather knowledge, free from interference, to educate people in skills and in thinking critically and independently. Some of my amendments to later provisions in the Bill come back to the importance of universities and how the Bill contradicts previous legislation introduced by the UK Government.
The Bill is, as I say, drafted poorly. I still do not understand the part of the Bill that talks about “a reasonable observer”. That is why we tabled the probing amendment 31. These are subjective, not objective tests. The Minister essentially needs to go back to the drawing board. The SNP is looking to divide the Committee on amendment 22.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 15, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment, and Amendments 16 and 17, seek to remove Scotland from the extent of this Bill.
Amendment 16, in clause 17, page 10, line 38, leave out “Scotland”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.
Amendment 1, in clause 17, page 10, line 39, at end insert—
“(1A) Section 1 does not apply to decisions made by—
(a) Scottish Ministers, unless a motion has been passed by the Scottish Parliament indicating its consent to this Act;
(b) Welsh Ministers, unless a motion has been passed by Senedd Cymru indicating its consent to this Act;
(c) a Northern Ireland department, unless a motion has been passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly indicating its consent to this Act.”
Amendment 17, in clause 17, page 11, line 19, leave out “Scotland”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.
Clause stand part.
Ms Qaisar
Scotland has its own legislative framework under the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, along with associated regulations and guidance. That legislative framework places duties on certain contracting authorities to demonstrate how the social, economic and environmental aims of procurement have been considered in a consistent manner, as required by the sustainable procurement duty under the Act. For example, a contracting authority is required to include a statement of its general policies on the procurement of fairly and ethically traded goods and services in its procurement strategy.
I have tabled a number of amendments in this group. Essentially, they can be summed up by this: Westminster might have the powers of reserved matters, but Scotland is a devolved nation. Scotland has its own Parliament and its own Government; it is not for Westminster to turn around and tell Scotland what she should do, because that Parliament was elected democratically by the people of Scotland. Devolved Governments, including the Scottish Government, make their own public procurement decisions. That is one manner in which they can encourage companies to behave in a way that is in line with human rights, including labour rights and environmental concerns.
Efforts made by devolved nations will be hampered by this Bill. We heard that last week from the Scottish Trades Union Congress. During evidence, Roz Foyer spoke about the Fair Work First scheme, which gives guidance for organisations seeking an award through public sector grants, contracts and other funding. Essentially, it is the Scottish Government’s approach to contracting. Scotland does not have the power to legislate on employment law—yet—but through programmes such as Fair Work First we have wide-ranging guidance and a number of benchmarks that contractors are held to in order to receive public money.
As I say, Scotland cannot implement laws in relation to employment, but it uses the right to implement and use money accordingly. Roz Foyer ended her point with something absolutely crucial. She said:
“I believe that is a very legitimate way to create a landscape of better employment rights and good practice, both domestically and internationally, and that work would be severely undermined by the current proposals.”––[Official Report, Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Public Bill Committee, 5 September 2023; c. 71, Q113.]
It is unprecedented that the Bill would prohibit Scottish Government Ministers from taking moral or political objections towards foreign state conducts into account when making procurement and investment decisions. A key concern is that the Bill alters the Executive competence of Scottish Government Ministers. Therefore, earlier this year, they lodged a legislative consent memorandum within the Scottish Parliament, as the Minister knows. Scottish Ministers have the ability, to the extent permitted by procurement legislation, to consider the country or territorial origin or other territorial considerations in a way that indicates political or moral disapproval of a foreign state when making decisions about procurement or investment.
An example, which the memorandum talks about, is the position taken by Scottish Government Ministers in relation to procuring goods from Russian suppliers following the invasion of Ukraine. That was the correct thing to do. If the Bill passes it will restrict, if not entirely remove, that ability and alter the executive competence of Scottish Ministers.
As we know, clause 4, which I will refer to later on, would make it unlawful for Scottish Ministers to even state that they would have acted differently if it were not for the provisions of the Bill. The Scottish Government’s memorandum outlines three principal decisions as to why they should not give their consent to the Bill, and I want to outline them. When the Committee hears the Scottish Government’s rationale, our reasons for tabling the amendments will be clear.
First, can the Minister provide some clarity? It is not clear what problem the UK Government seek to address by including Scottish Ministers within the scope of the Bill. [Interruption.] Hear me out. I know the Minister will probably turn around and say, “Scottish Government Ministers have to listen to the UK Government because we have reserved powers on matters of foreign policy.” However, we struggle to understand this. The Scottish Government have always acted responsibly and in line with the UK’s international commitments. Scotland is not an independent country—yet—so the argument that a decision of the Scottish Government in relation to a particular procurement or investment process may be mistaken by overseas Governments for an alternative UK foreign policy lacks credibility. It just does not make sense.
When I join international delegations, I will talk about the good work that the SNP’s Scottish Government are doing. For example, people are quite interested in the baby box—a groundbreaking piece of policy that gives every single baby born in Scotland a box. Please bear with me, Chair, as this will come back to the Bill. When I am abroad and I talk to people about the SNP’s baby box, they understand that the legislation is from Scotland; it is not UK-wide. People might not understand the intricacies of devolved and reserved matters—as a former modern studies teacher I take great pride in explaining this to people—but they do understand that foreign policy is set by the UK Government. It is not clear what the Bill seeks to address by including Scottish Government Ministers.
Secondly, the Scottish Government take a value-based approach to international engagement. I know that because up until my promotion to SNP levelling-up spokesperson last week, I led on international development for the SNP—I will give myself that shout-out. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I thank hon. Members. I know that at the heart of the Scottish Government, international activity creates opportunity at home, broadens horizons, attracts high-quality investment and ultimately benefits the people of Scotland. While the Scottish Government will always meet the obligations placed upon them by international law and treaties, people in Scotland quite rightly expect that decisions should not be made in an ethical or moral vacuum.
Thirdly, the Scottish Government memorandum talks a lot about clause 4 and I will speak about that later. However, I would be interested to hear from the Minister about this. I still do not understand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West said, what a Scottish Government Minister needs to say when on television or giving a quote to a newspaper. Do they have to turn around and say, “I am talking as a Scottish Government Minister”, “I am talking as an SNP MSP,” or “I am talking as an individual”? We need some clarity from the Minister on that.
The Scottish Government, of course, recommended that the Scottish Parliament does not give consent to the Bill. I urge the Minister to take heed. My amendments are all in regard to Scotland and understanding why Scotland has been included in this. Can the Minister take heed and pay attention to that?
Chris Stephens
It gives me great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts, who is taking over as the levelling-up spokesperson after this Committee. I want to support her amendments for several reasons. First, procurement is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. That is clear, as we heard in the evidence sessions in the questions asked not just by myself but by my Labour colleagues around the effects of procurement in the devolved Administrations.
There is real concern that the Bill seems to override the devolved Parliaments in this area. The devolved Parliaments clearly and correctly suggest that they would want to use their procurement in an ethical way. The problem that we have, of course, is that witness after witness was saying, and those speaking on behalf of the Bill were saying, “It’s up to the Westminster Government to dictate foreign policy.” Well, that gets us only so far. Every local authority that I can recall in Scotland in the lead-up to the Iraq war had a vote on whether it supported the war. Will this Bill seek to stop that sort of activity? Witnesses said last week that this would have stopped what Glasgow District Council did in 1981 in relation to South Africa.
Half a billion years ago, the land masses now known as Scotland and England joined up physically. They are playing a football match tonight. I am quite nervous because Scotland do not do too well against the lesser nations when it comes to football, as we know, but we will see what happens tonight.
We have to be very clear here. The Scottish Parliament was reconvened in 1999. Devolution was approved overwhelmingly by the people of Scotland. I do not think that the people of Scotland will take too kindly to a Westminster Government who seek to impinge on the devolved matters and devolved legislation of the Scottish Parliament.
Wayne David
Thank you, Sir George; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I would like to speak to amendment 1 and make it clear that it is to clause 17 but there is an opportunity to discuss it at this time because it deals with the issue of devolution. As is very clear, the Bill applies to the whole United Kingdom, but for it to operate in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, certain legislative consent motions have to be agreed under the Sewel convention. That is because the Bill impinges on at least some of the competencies of the Ministers of the devolved institutions. That is made clear by the Library note. There is an impact on the devolution settlement, and it has to be worked through within the context of that settlement.
Amendment 1 makes the process clear, to avoid any misunderstanding. As we know, there have been constitutional debates, even arguments, between the Government here in Westminster and the devolved institutions, particularly the Scottish Parliament. This amendment simply sets out what is legally the case. It is not a contentious amendment. It simply puts in black and white what is the reality and should be adhered to by all parties. The Government had advance notice of the amendment, and there has been some discussion of it. I urge the Government, given that they are adhering to the idea of mutual respect between the institutions of the United Kingdom, to accept amendment 1. It is uncontentious; it is Government policy. It makes clear what the devolved settlement is in reality.
Chris Stephens
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point. Does he support the position that I laid out, which is that procurement is viewed very seriously by the devolved Administrations and there is concern that the Bill seeks to interfere negatively in that?
Wayne David
Many aspects of procurement and other aspects touched on in this Bill are in part devolved to the various institutions. We have a complex mosaic in the UK: the devolution settlements for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are different in several respects. Nevertheless, the overriding fact is that there is definitely an impingement on devolution powers, however they are defined in the circumstances, and the Sewel convention is needed to ensure that there is common agreement on what is being done by central Government.
I refer in particular to the Northern Ireland situation, because we have received written evidence from the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Local Government Officer Superannuation Committee, David Murphy. He makes the point that as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, there is the Public Service Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2014, which effectively devolves public sector pensions in large part to the Northern Ireland Assembly. He goes on to conclude, after having described the arrangements:
“It is our understanding that in the absence of the NI Assembly sitting it will not be possible to obtain a Legislative Consent Motion for the proposed legislation.”
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, it might be helpful to point out that if Members want to be called, they should bob. That way I will be able to work out the sequence of the debate.
Felicity Buchan
I shall begin by addressing amendments 15, 16 and 17. The amendments would remove references in clause 17 that extend the Bill to Scotland. The amendments also remove a reference to Scotland in clause 3. Scottish Ministers are currently named on the face of the Bill so that they can only be exempted from the ban via a change to primary legislation. The amendment would allow Scottish Ministers to be exempted from the ban via secondary legislation.
The Bill’s provisions apply to all areas of the UK. The provisions apply to all public authorities, as defined in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, across England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. First, it is absolutely essential that the Bill extends to public authorities across the entirety of the UK. Foreign policy is a reserved matter. The Bill ensures that the UK speaks with one voice internationally. It will safeguard the integrity and singularity of the UK’s established foreign policy, which is set exclusively for the whole of the United Kingdom by the United Kingdom Government.
Secondly, as we heard extensively in the oral evidence sessions, boycott, divestment and sanctions policies are divisive and undermine community cohesion. We have seen examples of actual or attempted BDS activity in public authorities in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is crucial therefore that the legislation applies across the UK to prevent such divisive behaviour in any of our communities.
Ms Qaisar
I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being very generous with her time. She has set out that UK foreign policy is a reserved competency. I am interested to seek clarity and understanding on that, as I cannot remember a time when the Scottish Government have taken a different stance to the UK Government on UK foreign policy. Is the Minister able to outline one of those stances?
Felicity Buchan
The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that we do not have any public authorities, whether that is Scottish Government Ministers, Scottish local authorities or English local authorities, taking different foreign policy decisions.
Felicity Buchan
Let me continue, please. I will come on to address a few of the points in relation to procurement and divestment when it represents political and moral disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct. I want to reassure the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts on a few points. As for Glasgow City Council changing the name of a street, nothing in the Bill changes the council’s ability to do that.
Felicity Buchan
No, I want to continue to make these points for the sake of clarity and address some of the issues.
Similarly, a Scottish Government Minister could say they oppose the Iraq war. The Bill applies when investment and procurement decisions are based on moral and political disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct.
Chris Stephens
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I know she is trying to clarify the situation, but I am afraid that those of us who are Glaswegian and proud of our Glaswegian roots are concerned that the Bill will prevent the actions that Glasgow took in the 1980s from happening again. The Conservative Government’s policy in the 1980s was against sanctions in South Africa, and Strathclyde Regional Council, City of Glasgow District Council and other Scottish local authorities decided to take investment and procurement decisions against the apartheid state of South Africa. City of Glasgow District Council was allowed to rename a street and give someone the freedom of the city, but would it have been able to take the decision to disinvest from apartheid South Africa had the Bill been in place in the 1980s?
Felicity Buchan
If Government sanctions exist, they continue to exist. The Bill is specifically to prohibit divestment and procurement decisions.
I want to address the point made by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts in relation to Russia. I give her my assurance that we will look to introduce a statutory instrument to exempt Russia and Belarus from the provisions of the Bill.
Amendment 30 would remove the decisions of Scottish Ministers from the scope of the Bill, and a carve-out for the decisions of Scottish Ministers would be inserted into clause 2. It is not clear whether the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts intends for the amendment to be read alongside amendments 15 to 17. Clause 2 applies the ban in clause 1 only to public authorities, as defined in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The clause also carefully defines decisions in scope only as those related to a public authority’s investment and procurement functions, which is the point I keep coming back to. I would like to reiterate my response to amendments 15 to 17 by saying it is absolutely essential that the Bill extends to public authorities across the entirety of the UK. That will include Ministers, Departments and agencies in the devolved Administrations, who have also faced pressure to engage in BDS activity.
As I have said, foreign policy is reserved, so it does not trigger a legislative consent motion. However, as the ban applies to the Ministers of the devolved Administrations, this may alter their Executive competence. We have therefore formally engaged the legislative consent process, and I look forward to discussing the Bill further with my counterparts in the devolved Administrations. The Government are not seeking legislative consent for the rest of the Bill’s provisions, as the other provisions do not trigger the legislative consent process.
I was asked specifically about how the Bill affects Northern Ireland. Given the continued absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, a legislative consent motion cannot be secured currently. It is important that the Bill applies in Northern Ireland to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland benefit from these important protections. UK Government officials will work with counterparts in Northern Ireland to discuss the Bill’s contents and provisions, along with the Bill’s devolution analysis. We are hopeful that when the Assembly is restored, it will be able to consider and support a legislative consent motion for the Bill.
Felicity Buchan
Let me continue.
The Government will continue to uphold the Sewel convention and make sure that the interests of the devolved Administrations, and of people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, are taken into account. I will address amendment 1 and see whether that answers the question raised by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. The amendment suggests an addition to clause 17 to make legislative consent a legal requirement. Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and Northern Ireland Departments would be captured by the Bill only once that consent is granted by each of the devolved legislatures.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North suggests an amendment that would undermine the principle that the UK Parliament is sovereign. It is not appropriate to write such a political convention to seek consent into the legislation as a legal precondition for the Bill to apply to devolved Ministers. Furthermore, the codification of the Sewel principles, which are already written in statute, is unnecessary. The Lords Constitution Committee recently reported on the issue, stating:
“We do not believe it would be desirable to involve the courts in adjudicating…on the meaning and application of the convention, which are best resolved through political deliberation.”
For those reasons, I ask hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.
Wayne David
I thank the Minister for her response. First, as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, my understanding of what she has said is that the legislation will not be applicable in large part until the Northern Ireland Assembly is reconvened and has had an opportunity to discuss with central Government a legislative consent motion. That is my understanding of what she has said. Will she confirm that?
Secondly, on the Sewel convention, it is unfortunate that the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment, because it simply reiterates the reality and provides clarification. I accept that in the Government’s mind it could be a questioning of the sovereignty of Parliament, but I do not think an accurate reading of the amendment will in any way suggest that. It recognises that the legislative consent motion process is well established. The Sewel convention needs to be firmed up, and this is one step in ensuring that the partnership of nations in the United Kingdom is made firmer, not weaker.
Felicity Buchan
On the Sewel convention, as I have said, we do not think it is appropriate that that is put into legislation. We feel that that is a political deliberation, but, clearly, the Government are supportive of the Sewel convention. In light of our support of the Sewel convention, we will do everything to work with the devolved Administrations, as we always do in order to try to get an LCM.
On the specific point about Northern Ireland, I want to correct your interpretation of what I said—
Felicity Buchan
My apologies, Sir George; I meant that I wanted to correct the interpretation of the hon. Member for Caerphilly of what I said. The measure will extend and apply to Northern Ireland by virtue of the fact that this is a foreign policy and it is a reserved matter, but we want to work to get the legislative consent motion, which might take time in Northern Ireland because it will require the Assembly to be in place.
Ms Qaisar
We have all spoken about how foreign policy is reserved, but public procurement and the use of taxpayers’ money is a devolved competence. It is completely correct that Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland attempt to use the leverage of public procurement to incentivise companies to behave sustainably with regard to human rights, labour rights and the environment. That is correct and right.
I am a little confused by the Minister’s contribution and would appreciate clarification. I made an intervention and she was very generous with her time. My question was whether she was able to explain a time when the Scottish Government had not been in line with the UK Government on foreign policy. As far as I am aware, the Scottish Government have always acted responsibly and in line with the UK’s international commitments. Why, therefore, have Scottish Ministers been included on the face of the Bill when the Minister is unable to explain that point?
I also seek clarification on the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West. My hon. Friend raised the point—we have spoken quite a bit about Glasgow City Council today—that after renaming the street and inviting Nelson Mandela to come and speak, would they have been able to disinvest? As far as I understood her contribution, the Bill would have stopped disinvestment in South Africa. I would appreciate clarification from the Minister, if she can give it. I would like to divide the Committee on my amendment.
The Chair
Amendment 1 will be taken later, but it is helpful that that intention has been signified. We are now on amendment 30.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Chris Stephens
On a point of order, Sir George. There was some confusion because of the number of amendments in the group. Could you clarify that some of the amendments we have debated are to other clauses, and that there will be Divisions when we get to those clauses? It would help Members if you could explain that.
The Chair
That is indeed a point of order. The remaining amendments in the group will be taken either in the next clause or later, when we come to clause 17, because they are consequential on the lead amendment.
Clause 3
Exceptions
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
This amendment would remove provisions allowing Ministers to amend the Schedule, via regulations, to add a description of decision or consideration, or amend or remove considerations added under previous regulations.
Clause 3 makes a number of exceptions, set out in the schedule, to the proposed ban on decisions made by public bodies in respect of foreign states—that is, it allows for certain conduct to be in scope for ethical decision making, such as environmental concerns. We support the principle of excepting certain powers from the Bill, and Members will not be surprised to hear that we are pleased to see labour rights there. However, the clause then bakes in a rather unacceptable and significant power grab by the Secretary of State over the ethical procurement decisions that a public body may wish to make.
Looking around the room, I see some Members who have been here longer than me and some who have been here for a bit less time, but I bet everyone will agree that one thing we were not told before we came here was that while we thought we would be talking about great matters of state, we would end up talking about Henry VIII regulations. Whatever happens, all roads lead to this bit of the Bill. I am continuing that unbroken streak, though perhaps not at length, as this argument is made frequently.
Clause 3(2) will provide the Secretary of State or Minister for the Cabinet Office with the power to amend this vital schedule in which the exceptions are laid out. That is an eccentric and totally unacceptable and unnecessary provision. This Parliament is rightly spending lots of time on this legislation. We have taken oral and written evidence from witnesses and will have multiple debates in the Chamber. We have convened this Bill Committee and will go through the Bill line by line, and then this process will be repeated in the other place. That is so we get the provisions right.
What we are being asked to do in the light of clause 3 and the schedule is to divine whether we think the range of exceptions is right. Is it broad enough? Is it too broad? Should we add any more? Should we take any out? That is the purpose of Parliament and parliamentary scrutiny. Yet we are being asked to put a provision in the Bill that the Secretary of State can just change that anyway via secondary means. That creates an unacceptable imbalance between the Executive and the legislature.
The problem is best understood in contrast to subsection (5) because that is a mirroring provision. It allows the Secretary of State to add or remove countries from the list of places that public bodies may boycott. We have not sought to amend that, because we know from recent painful experience that foreign affairs have a habit of moving on, and there must be an opportunity for the Government of the day to make changes swiftly. That is entirely reasonable in the case of foreign affairs and entirely unreasonable in the case of exempted activities, because they will not change quickly. Environmental and labour concerns are anchor issues that will dominate debates long after all of us are gone. The Secretary of State and the Government more generally do not need the power to vary that quickly.
If we do not accept the amendment and we accept what is in the Bill, what all colleagues—Opposition and, frankly, Government Back Benchers too—are being told is, “Do all the due process, but don’t worry; we will just change it later if we fancy it”. That is not good enough in a parliamentary democracy, and we should delete the provision today.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I will make just a short contribution, if I may. I associate myself with the comments of our shadow Minister. The matters covered by the Bill relate to issues of fundamental importance: the interpretation of UK foreign policy and the ability of public bodies to respond. We live in uncertain times, and the UK’s position as an influential country on the world’s stage will understandably need to change in response to events in many areas of instability. In those circumstances, it would be fundamentally wrong for Ministers to reserve to themselves the power to amend the schedule in the Bill without returning to Parliament and giving MPs and, indeed, interested parties the opportunity to scrutinise and, where necessary, object to it. That is why I support amendment 4.
Steve McCabe
I will speak briefly about subsection (7), and in particular about amendments 5 and 6, tabled by my colleagues. As I understand it—
Felicity Buchan
Amendment 4 would remove the power granted to the Secretary of State to amend the schedule so as to make exemptions to the ban for certain bodies and functions and certain types of considerations, and to amend or remove regulations made under those powers.
The power is necessary to ensure that the ban can evolve over time and operate as intended. The Bill rightly applies to the full range of public authorities. That is necessary to ensure that we have a consistent approach to foreign policy and to stop public authorities being distracted from their core duties by divisive debates and policies. In the event that the ban has unintended consequences for a public authority and impacts on its ability to deliver its core functions, however, this power will allow the Secretary of State to exempt the body, or a function of that body, from the ban via a statutory instrument. The exercise of the power will be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses.
The power will also allow the Secretary of State to exempt certain types of considerations from the ban. That may be necessary if the Secretary of State needs to react quickly to international events. In the drafting of this legislation, my officials have been careful to ensure that the Bill applies only to appropriate bodies and types of considerations. However, the Government may also decide that a certain consideration should be made exempt from the ban so that the Bill can operate as intended. The Secretary of State requires the power so that he can respond effectively to potential unintended consequences that the Bill might have on a public authority without the need for primary legislation. If that had to be done through primary legislation, a public authority might have its ability to carry out public functions hindered for an extended period. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Nottingham North to withdraw his amendment.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that answer, but I am afraid that the Minister has rather made the Opposition’s case for us. It is deeply concerning to hear that the purpose of the provision is about anxiety in Government concerning the possibility of a bundle of unintended consequences that could hinder a public body’s activities for a number of months, as has been said. That is the reality—we have said that from start to finish. This thing will set a fire. This thing will roll in ways that we cannot conceive of, because it is so broadly drawn and, in places, so erratically drawn. That is a reason for not proceeding with the Bill in this form, and for coming back together to produce—as we are all keen to—something that is less broad and wide-ranging, but delivering a solution to the problem that we are seeking to tackle.
The Minister’s argument is not for retaining subsection (2), but for revisiting the provisions. I therefore hope that, having said that, she will reflect on the fact that she discussed the great anxiety about the unintended consequences of the Bill. That is what we should be addressing, instead of just giving yet more powers to Secretaries of State to act as they wish. I will press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 3, page 2, line 40, at end insert—
“(4A) Section 1 does not apply to a decision which has been made in accordance with a Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights.
(4B) A Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights—
(a) is a public authority’s policy criteria relating to disinvestment in cases concerning contravention of human rights; and
(b) must be applied consistently by the public authority to all foreign countries.
(4C) Within 60 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish, and lay before Parliament, guidance on the form, content and application of Statements for the purposes of this section.
(4D) Public authorities must have regard to the guidance referenced in subsection (4C) when devising a Statement.”
This amendment would exempt public bodies from the prohibition in section 1, where the decision has been made in accordance with a Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights. A Statement may not single out individual nations, but would have to be applied consistently, and in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State.
We heard on Second Reading, and again today, that the Government want to put disapproval of the conduct of foreign states and their territories beyond the scope of competent activity for local public bodies, in order to stop public bodies taking partial and potentially harmful stances. However, this Bill is akin to using a nuclear weapon to crack that nut. We have just heard from the Minister that the Government are so concerned about the unintended consequences the Bill may have that they are having to reserve the powers to change it quickly later, lest a public body be shut down for a number of months. The Committee just accepted that change, but it is yet another power grab by the Secretary of State and it is heavy-handed in its enforcement.
Amendment 2 sets out an alternative approach. We have been clear from the outset that it is possible to achieve what both the Government and the Opposition wish to achieve but without the overreach of the Bill in its current form. Amendment 2 would allow a public body to produce a document that sets out its policy on procurement and human rights and for that to be developed in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State. This is a relatively long-held Opposition policy. Indeed, it is similar to an amendment I tabled to the Procurement Bill many months ago. It is vital that procurement decisions made with regard to human rights issues be applied across the board, not just to prevent unethical actions against specific states but to ensure that common actions have the greatest impact.
Such a statement of ethical policy would thus ensure consistency in how contracting authorities—or public bodies more generally—decide on such matters, and inconsistent application would be prohibited. The practical effect would be to make it unambiguous that if a public body does not wish to procure goods from Russia because of President Putin’s abhorrent human rights abuses in Ukraine, the law will be on its side. If the same body does not wish to procure services from Xinjiang because of the appalling treatment of Uyghur Muslims, the law will be on its side.
Chris Stephens
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. In our evidence sessions, we heard very powerful testimony from Uyghur society and the Uyghur people, who said that we really need to look at this part of the Bill. Does he also agree that it is very interesting that witnesses on the Government’s side support disinvestment for China, for the very reasons that he has just outlined?
Alex Norris
I agree. After hearing that testimony, I reflected on one of the things that I love the most about my country—I think about this quite a lot—which is that we stand up for people who need it, whether by providing shelter or by never walking on the other side of the road. I see things through that prism. I think it is a really fundamental British value, and I am concerned that we will lose some of that. Of course, significant matters of foreign policy are the reserve of the Government of the day, but the issue should not just be left to Government Ministers. The outpouring of support for Ukraine, both in my city and across the country, showed that people take that seriously and want to have a role and a say—they want to be part of that process. That is part of building common cause, but I fear that this goes too far and will squeeze some of that out.
Our amendment 2 makes our approach to the matter very clear. If a public body acts only against a particular state—for instance, the world’s only Jewish state—while not applying the same approach to human rights abuses everywhere, such actions would be illegal. Our amendment would not just ensure that there are consistent decisions and that communities are not singled out; it would also strengthen our country’s commitment to stand against human rights abuses all over the world.
Our country has always defended the fundamental, inalienable human rights of all people. Procurement and investment decisions are part of that, and we should not shirk that role when it is the right thing to do. The amendment would ensure that public bodies could still play their part and that the contemptible actions of those who target one state while looking the other way when abuses are committed elsewhere are finally prohibited.
As I said on Second Reading, our amendment could be technically deficient—I am never sure whether we are supposed to admit that in Parliament, but it is clear anyway. If it is technically deficient—after all, I drafted it, and am perfectly willing to say that it is the work of a human being—we are more than willing to work with the Government to find something that works in both principle and substance. I hope to hear from the Minister that there is willingness to meet us a little bit on this, so that we can tackle the problem that we are all trying to address.
Kim Leadbeater
I rise to speak briefly but strongly in favour of amendment 2. The UK should be a beacon for human rights, not just here at home but in our foreign policy and our relations with other states. That can be done only on the basis of a consistent application of the principles we seek to uphold. It is not hard to do that when human rights abuses are committed by countries we are in conflict with. However, we must be ready to apply the same standards to countries we regard as allies and friends. That is not always easy, but if we fail to do so, we open ourselves up to accusations of double standards and hypocrisy.
Felicity Buchan
Amendment 2 would exempt decisions from the ban that have been made in accordance with a statement of policy relating to human rights, produced by a public authority. The Secretary of State would be required to produce guidance on the content of any such statement, to which public authorities would be required to have regard.
Seventy-five years on from the signing of the universal declaration of human rights, the UK remains steadfastly committed to an open international order, a world where democracy and freedoms grow and where autocracy is challenged. We put open societies and the protection of human rights around the world at the heart of what we do. That includes our membership of the Human Rights Council, robust action to hold Russia to account over its actions in Ukraine and at home, calling out China in Xinjiang, leading the call for the special session on the human rights implications of the conflict in Sudan, and our global human rights sanctions regime.
We continue to work with our partners, civil society and human rights defenders to encourage all states to defend democracy and freedom and to hold those who violate human rights to account. Our annual human rights and democracy reports are an important part of that work. This Government, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Ministers and officials continue to defend individual rights and freedoms, including through regularly raising concerns with other Governments. Our resolve to ensure that everyone can enjoy their rights is unwavering.
The international rules-based system is critical to protecting and realising the human rights and freedoms of people all over the world. We work through the multilateral system to encourage all states to uphold their international human rights obligations and to hold those who violate human rights to account. We are all in agreement that human rights abuses have no place in public supply chains.
I am concerned, however, that this amendment would give public authorities too much discretion to apply blanket boycotts. I also believe that the amendment is unnecessary because of the work that the Government are already doing in the Procurement Bill, which I will address in more detail.
The Procurement Bill already contains a robust regime for the exclusion of suppliers that are unfit to hold public contracts. That Bill sets out a wide range of exclusion grounds that target the most serious risks to public procurement, including modern slavery and human trafficking. The Cabinet Office has strengthened the way in which these terms are defined, so that suppliers may be excluded where there is sufficient evidence that they are responsible for abuses anywhere in the world, whether or not they have been convicted of an offence.
We have mirrored in this Bill the exclusion grounds in the Procurement Bill that pose the most significant risk to public procurement as exceptions to the ban, including for modern slavery and human trafficking. This means that public authorities will be allowed to make a territorial consideration that is influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct in so far as it relates to one of the considerations listed in the schedule.
Moreover, there is guidance to help contracting authorities to address human rights risks, and there is well-established practice throughout the procurement process. That detailed and thorough guidance includes sections on managing risks from new procurements and assessing existing contracts, taking action when victims of modern slavery or human rights abuses are identified, and supply chain mapping, and it includes useful tools and training.
For the reasons that I have set out, this amendment is unnecessary, but I am also concerned that it would give authorities too broad a discretion to apply blanket boycotts. The amendment would allow authorities to exclude suppliers from entire nations without proper consideration of whether a supplier itself had had any involvement in the abuse. To exclude suppliers based solely on where they are located conflicts with the open principles of our procurement regime and would in some cases be contrary to the UK’s international obligations, such as non-discrimination requirements set out in the World Trade Organisation agreement on Government procurement.
As I have previously stated, foreign policy is a matter for the UK Government and not an issue for public bodies. It is not appropriate for public bodies to be producing their own policies on human rights in relation to other nations. This amendment would undermine the intentions of the Bill, leaving public authorities distracted by questions and debate about their human rights statements and the foreign policy that lies behind that. Many public authorities with no interest or expertise in such debates would come under pressure to produce statements or to explain why they did not have one. The discretion for public authorities, even acting within Government guidance, would mean a multitude and divergence of foreign policies across our public institutions and a confusing picture on the international stage of what the elected Government’s foreign policy was. My concern is that, were this amendment to be agreed to, every local authority and public body would feel the need to produce such a statement even though they felt that they had no expertise in human rights. I am concerned that it would increase the level of dissension and community friction rather than in any way lessening it.
I just want to clarify that nothing in this Bill affects private individuals and private companies and their ability, clearly, to boycott or divest.
Chris Stephens
That is the double standard in the Bill: private companies can do what they like, but public bodies cannot. If I understand the Minister’s line of argument, she is concerned that this amendment could be used or abused by local authorities, but proposed new subsection (4C) specifically gives the Government the power to stop any blanket boycott. That somewhat negates her arguments.
Lastly, does the Minister agree with the position of any local authority that wishes to disinvest from China and Xinjiang in particular because of its treatment of the Uyghur Muslims?
Felicity Buchan
The hon. Gentleman alludes to the difference between how we treat private and public bodies. There is a very good fundamental reason for that: we want there to be one UK foreign policy and we do not want other public bodies to be making up their own foreign policy or statements on such matters, whereas a private individual or private company is entitled to invest or divest as they see fit.
Bob Blackman
Our public bodies include people from countries all over the world, some of whom may have expertise relating to a particular country. Under this amendment, if they highlighted human rights abuses in a specific country it could result in their public authority introducing a policy that is totally different from that of all other public authorities. Does my hon. Friend agree that such a risk should not be put in the hands of local authorities?
Felicity Buchan
That is a very good point. This amendment carries the risk of allowing a multitude of different statements on human rights, without any consistency, resulting in the community friction that we all desperately seek to avoid. That is why we are looking to boycott the BDS movement.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. To address the point made by the hon. Member for Harrow East, the circumstance he outlined could happen now, of course. Part of the reason we are here and that legislation in this space is important is that it does not happen in that way, does it? As we heard in the evidence sessions, it almost exclusively tends to be targeted at Israel. I do not think there is any evidence to suggest that local expertise is causing a thousand flowers to bloom across public bodies. Actually, amendment 2 would protect against that because it would give local authorities tools to say, “Look, we can only do this if we can engage in it across the piece, and we don’t think that that is core business.”
The Minister has expressed her concerns about distractions for local authorities. I know from my time in a local authority, during which we pushed back against a boycott of Israel, that these things flair up over a short period, a lot of energy goes into them, and it would have been much better to have had a fixed point. The amendment reserves the right of the Secretary of State to set out the form, so there would be no wild variance across all public bodies. It would give them a fixed point to anchor to, which would take a lot of pressure off the leaders of public bodies.
I am grateful to the Minister for making those points, but the reality is that we are in slightly different positions. I still hold out the hope—and I will be actively working on this between now and the final stages of this Bill—that our positions will become closer. At this point, however, given that the gap has not closed during this debate, I will have to press my amendment to a Division. We want to send a clear message that there are other ways of achieving this very important purpose.
Wayne David
I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 3, page 3, line 10, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment removes the existing stipulation that the power to exempt a country or territory from section 1 may not be used in respect of Israel.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 6, in clause 3, page 3, line 11, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
This amendment removes the existing stipulation that the power to exempt a country or territory from section 1 may not be used in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the Occupied Golan Heights.
Wayne David
In its present form, the Bill will introduce a blanket prevention of public authorities’ ability to take into account human rights—the Government would say foreign policy—when making certain decisions. There can be exceptions; we have heard the Government mention Belarus and Russia. Yet for Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights to be exempted, it is not enough for a Secretary of State to bring forward a statutory instrument; primary legislation will be required.
We have a fundamental problem with the clause, which is the conflation of Israel with the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights. Israel is a sovereign state; the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights are areas that have been occupied since 1967, and the occupation is deemed illegal under international law. In fact, it is not simply international law; the Government themselves have—until now, it seems—held that position very firmly. Let me quote from a fairly innocuous document, the Government’s guidance on overseas business risk, which was only published in February 2022:
“The UK has a clear position on Israeli settlements: The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights have been occupied by Israel since 1967. Settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
That has been the Government’s position, clearly and consistently expressed.
Chris Stephens
The hon. Gentleman presents a very powerful position. Members on the Opposition Benches have been told by the Government that the Bill should comply with Foreign Office policy. It seems that the Government are now deviating from Foreign Office policy. It should not be one rule for the Government and one rule for every other public body, should it?
Wayne David
There might well be something in what the hon. Gentleman suggests. There is, to be honest, a not-too-subtle change in the Government’s emphasis and in their exposition on this matter. Equating Israel and the occupied territories is unique in any British legislation, let alone any Government statement; it questions the long-standing position of the United Kingdom supporting a two-state solution based on 1967 lines.
There is also the question of international law. In his first written submission to the Committee, Richard Hermer KC cited the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice concerning the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. In his second written submission, he also made reference to the United Nations.
I respectfully remind the Committee that the UK is a founding signatory of the charter of the United Nations and is obliged to comply with Security Council resolutions. Security Council resolution 2334 very clearly expresses the concern about Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories; I want to emphasise that point. Operative paragraph 1 of the resolution states very clearly that the Security Council
“Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace”.
Operative paragraph 5 imposes an international-law obligation on all states to ensure that they treat the OPT differently from Israel. It states that the Security Council
“Calls upon all States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967”.
In summation, clause 3(7) is incompatible with international law, for two very solid, basic reasons. First, it gives special protection to goods and services from both Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Moreover, it gives greater protection to illegal settlements in the OPT than it does to any other state in the world except Israel. That is quite incredible. If that does not suggest a change in Government policy, what on earth would? It seriously draws into question the Government’s commitment to international law—if that doesn’t, I don’t know what does.
Secondly, clause 3(7) fails to differentiate between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I do not want particularly to be in this Committee to make history: I want the Government to say, “Yes, we are being consistent. We have said this all along. We are not nudging Parliament to a change in policy. We are reaffirming where we stand.” That is the right decision to make. I am pleased to say that there has been genuine consensus in Parliament on the issue of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I do not want to see that consensus being weakened, and I certainly do not want to see it being shattered. I fear that this legislation is the thin end of the wedge.
Bob Blackman
One concern that needs to be looked at is cause and effect. When there have been attempts to put pressure on companies that trade with the occupied territories, it is often Palestinians themselves who lose their livelihood as a direct result. One reason I think this is so important is that it is for the Government to decide this, not for individual public authorities.
The other issue that needs to be on the record is that the occupied territories have been the occupied territories for thousands of years. There has never been a state of Palestine. It has always been occupied by someone. We could go back to the days of the Israelites arriving from Egypt; we could go through the Roman occupation; we could go through the Ottoman empire; we could go through Jordan occupying it until ’67. The reality is that they have never had the ability to exercise authority over themselves. It is very important, when decisions are made on procurement, that we consider all the causes and the direct effects of a decision being made to disinvest from the occupied territories. We owe it to the Palestinians to safeguard their livelihoods and interests. That is one reason why clause 3(7) is so important: it protects them from unintended, although possibly well-meaning, consequences from particular public authorities.
Steve McCabe
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly about all three paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of clause 3(7). It is one of the more contentious parts of the Bill. I am not sure that I doubt the Government’s good intentions over it, but I doubt whether it will have the effect that the Government seek. If I can echo what the hon. Member for Harrow East suggested, for slightly different reasons, I also think it may have unintended consequences.
Kim Leadbeater
Regrettably, no Palestinian voices were called to give oral evidence to the Committee—I wish they had been—but a number of respected and representative organisations have submitted written evidence. If we take notice of only one objection that they raised, although that would be a mistake because they raised a number of really valuable points, it should be this: the Bill should not treat Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the occupied Golan Heights on an equal basis. The exclusion raises serious questions about the UK’s commitment to a just two-state solution and its alignment with established international law principles governing the status of the territories, which—as noted in international law, norms and consensus—are illegally occupied territories. We should take note of such serious concerns, which is why I support amendment 6.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Jacob Young.)
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 12th September 2023
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 September 2023 - (12 Sep 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment 6, in clause 3, page 3, line 11, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
This amendment removes the existing stipulation that the power to exempt a country or territory from section 1 may not be used in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the Occupied Golan Heights.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The amendments were tabled by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. We are discussing the part of the Bill that got the most comment on Second Reading. It had the most written submissions and witness statements, and considerable time was spent on this issue during the evidence sessions.
The hon. Member is trying to improve the Bill, which is a dog’s breakfast, so it is sometimes difficult to come up with the requisite amendments to try to sort it out. [Interruption.] If anybody wants to make an intervention, I am more than happy to take one. We are trying to amend the Bill so that it is acceptable to everyone. May I remind everyone that a number of Conservative Members were very exercised about this part of the Bill on Second Reading? We need to spend some time on this proposal to see whether we can come up with solutions, because there are real problems with clause 3(7) remaining in the Bill.
I remind Members of the exchange I had with the hon. Member for Caerphilly. It looks like we have a UK Government who want all public bodies to comply with their Foreign Office policy, but this area of the Bill appears to be in defiance of that policy. Why do I say that? Only a couple of days before Second Reading, Foreign Office Ministers made the position very clear during Foreign Office questions: they viewed the occupied territories as being illegal under international law. However, it is now being suggested in the Bill that a public body will not be able to disinvest from or boycott the occupied territories or the Golan Heights. There is a contradiction there, and the Government really need to look at that. It looks as though they are changing their Foreign Office policy through a piece of domestic legislation, and that is not the appropriate place to do it.
I sympathise with what the Trades Union Congress said about this issue: the Government are getting themselves into all sorts of difficulties. For example, they will be aware that the International Criminal Court has opened an investigation into the situation in Palestine, which covers crimes that are alleged to have been committed since 2014. Under their statute, the UK Government have obligations under that investigation, and there is a real concern that they are not acting consistently to uphold international law in this regard. There are real concerns that the situation, whereby Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories and the Syrian Golan Heights for more than 50 years, is in violation of international law and, significantly, numerous UN resolutions. The UN resolutions are important; a Foreign Office Minister referred to them prior to Second Reading.
I remind the Committee that in presenting the Second Reading, the Minister and the Secretary of State made their position clear. As is stated in the Hansard reports of those debates, they said that they thought the Bill would not impact on the UK Government’s position in relation to the occupied territories and the Golan Heights. But I am afraid that my reading of the situation, which is shared by many others, is that that is exactly what it does. I will support amendments 5 and 6.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I draw the Committee’s attention, as I did in the evidence sessions, to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I will not take up too much of the Committee’s time, but a point needs to be made on this important amendment and to be heard time and again. It relates to why Israel should be so significantly named, as apart from any other territory or country, in the Bill. For a start, Israel is a democracy in the middle east—a quite rare democracy in that region—the democratic values of which we need to seek to uphold.
More fundamentally, we should ask ourselves what the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement is. In the written and oral evidence given to the Committee, we heard clearly not that the movement is just a little bit against Israel—it does not just have some sort of mild disagreement with Israel or the Government of the day in Israel—but that the leaders of the BDS movement explicitly talk about wanting the destruction of the state of Israel. Israel is the target of the BDS movement. Its leaders have repeatedly rejected a two-state solution, which has broad agreement across all the political parties here in the United Kingdom and in many other democracies around the world. The co-founder of the Palestinian BDS National Committee explicitly goes further, and states his opposition to Israel’s right to exist as a state of the Jewish people.
That is why we need such explicit recognition in the Bill, which I hope will go on to become an Act. It will protect our allies in Israel and stop the malign forces in the BNC membership, which includes a coalition of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—organisations that we in the United Kingdom proscribe. That is why I will vote against the amendments and seek to see the Bill pass through the Committee unamended.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
Amendments 5 and 6 would remove from the Bill the references to Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the occupied Golan Heights. All Committee members can agree that BDS is a pernicious movement that does nothing to promote peace in the middle east and sows division and hatred in the UK.
Last week, we heard passionate testimonies from representatives of the Jewish community in the UK on the impact of anti-Israel boycotts and divestments on community cohesion and their links to antisemitism. The witnesses set out that the statistics clearly demonstrate the link between antisemitism here in the UK and the situation in Israel: the months with the highest levels of antisemitic incidents in the UK correspond to the months in which conflicts have happened in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That is why most of us on the Committee agree that we need to legislate to ban public authorities from engaging in such BDS campaigns.
We have seen that BDS campaigns pursued by public authorities often target the settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. For example, in 2014 Leicester City Council passed a motion that stated:
“Leicester City Council resolves, insofar as legal considerations allow, to boycott any produce originating from illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank”.
In 2021, a UN special rapporteur wrote to all local government pensions scheme committee chairs urging them to divest from companies that conduct business in the Israeli settlements. I think we can all agree that we should send a clear message that such campaigns should not be allowed, and the Bill provides that clarity.
For those reasons, it is vital that should a future Government choose to allow public authorities to engage in boycotts or divestments against Israel, it is done through a change to primary legislation and is thus subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. That is the only reason that Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Occupied Golan Heights are named on the face of the Bill. The addition to the Bill is simply about ensuring that we use the most appropriate parliamentary procedure for a decision that would have a harmful impact on community cohesion in the UK.
Several Members referred to UK Government foreign policy. I will make it absolutely clear that the Bill does not in any way legislate for the UK’s foreign policy with regard to Israel. The Bill will not prevent the UK from imposing sanctions or otherwise changing our foreign policy on any country in the future if it is deemed appropriate by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The Bill does not change our policy on the middle east. Our position on the middle east peace process is and continues to be clear: we support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel, living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states and a just, fair, agreed and realistic settlement for refugees.
I will also make it clear that the UK believes very strongly in the importance of complying with international obligations under the UN charter and in compliance with Security Council resolutions. As I stated on Second Reading, the view of the UK Government is that the Bill is compliant with international law and our obligations under UN Security Council resolution 2334. For those reasons, I respectfully ask hon. Members to withdraw the amendments.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement. I accept what she says about the Government’s commitment to a two-state solution, and so on, but that does not take away from the fact that substantive elements of the Bill, at the very least, place a serious question mark over that commitment. That is objectively true.
As Opposition Members have made clear many times, we are opposed to the BDS movement and all that it stands for, but this is not about that. The question before us is: what is the best way to tackle that? We believe that the best way to do so is on a cross-party basis by getting people together and creating a political consensus that will hold firm and endure. That is where we stand, and that is the basis of our opposition to the Bill.
It is also extremely important that we reiterate our commitment to international law. Again, I hear what the Minister says, and I do not doubt her sincerity for one moment, but there is nevertheless an opinion among those in the legal community that this legislation substantially questions our commitment to international law, and we are extremely concerned about that.
It is important that we conduct this whole debate in a constructive and friendly way, as I believe we have done so far. It is very important that whatever the outcome of our final deliberations and whether or not the Bill becomes an Act, it is nevertheless extremely important that we collectively reaffirm our commitment to peace and stability between Israel and Palestine.
Chris Stephens
I beg to move amendment 18, in the schedule, page 13, line 5, at end insert—
“(2) Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in breaching international law, where that breach of international law is directly related to the decision.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 14, in the schedule, page 15, line 29, at end insert—
“11 (1) Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as it relates to genocide.
(2) That includes a consideration related to the possibility of genocide having taken place or taking place in the future.
(3) In this paragraph, ‘genocide’ has the same meaning as in the International Criminal Court Act 2001.”
This amendment adds genocide as an exemption to the application of section 1.
Amendment 19, in the schedule, page 15, line 29, at end insert—
“11 Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in the crime of genocide as determined under international law, where that crime of genocide is directly related to the decision.”
Amendment 20, in the schedule, page 15, line 29, at end insert—
“11 Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in the crime of ethnic cleansing as determined under international law, where that ethnic cleansing is directly related to the decision.”
Amendment 21, in the schedule, page 15, line 29, at end insert—
“11 Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in the crime of apartheid as determined under international law, where that crime of apartheid is directly related to the decision.”
That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.
Chris Stephens
I rise to speak to speak to amendments 18 to 21; we support amendment 14. The provisions of clause 1 are referred to in part 2 of the schedule under “International law” and consideration given to the possibility of the United Kingdom being
“in breach of its obligations under international law.”
The Bill’s constraints are therefore relaxed to deal with those circumstances. I hope that the Committee has a unanimous view that a person or body engaged in breaching international law should not gain any financial, economic or other reward from such breaches. Amendment 18 would embed that view into the Bill. That is why I and my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts tabled it.
Regarding genocide, my colleagues and I refer the Committee to a lengthy list of countries identified by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office as human rights priority countries, several of which stand accused of genocide. The Bill would be improved by recognising that crime and the need for the international community, including the United Kingdom, to act against it when and where it has occurred. I therefore commend amendment 19 to the Committee. For broadly the same reasons, it is appropriate that we introduce amendments dealing with ethnic cleansing as well.
Regarding apartheid, I referred earlier in the debate to Scotland’s concerted fight against apartheid in South Africa. Sadly, that crime was not eradicated with the fall of that racist regime, and it has reappeared around the globe many times since then. I believe that the Conservative party was on the wrong side of history when it came to take a stand on apartheid South Africa; with this Bill, it appears to be choosing to continue that shameful legacy. We must learn from the past and make decisions for a better future. I therefore commend the amendments in my name, and in the name of my hon. Friend, to the Committee.
Wayne David
I rise to speak to speak to amendment 14. As we have heard, this Bill is not country or nation specific. It applies as much to Myanmar, North Korea and China as it does to Israel. The Government say there will be exemptions; Belarus and Russia have been mentioned, but unfortunately no others, and that is one of the profound weaknesses in the Bill. There are also other non-nation exemptions—financial and practical matters, bribery, competition law infringements, the environment and so on—but, crucially, there is no reference to genocide.
In June, 19 leading Uyghurs wrote a letter to The Times in which they expressed their serious concerns about the Bill. Last week, we heard evidence from the UK director of the World Uyghur Congress. In what I thought was a very moving session, the director told us that she strongly opposed the Bill and made it clear that it was not just her own view, but the view of the entire Uyghur community she represented.
There can be no doubt that the Uyghur minority in China are victims of grave and systematic human rights abuses. The Government have correctly described these abuses as “barbarism”. The UN has said that the crimes may well constitute crimes against humanity, and the US Administration have said that what we are seeing is genocide. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Government accept the amendment, and in so doing demonstrate that they stand foursquare behind the Uyghur community.
The Chair
I have to say, Mr Blackman, that your timing is not that good today. We will take this as an intervention.
Bob Blackman
I have every sympathy with a view of taking action against nations that commit genocide, but the hon. Gentleman and I know that when we have tried to get the Government to classify certain human rights abuses as genocide, we get met with the legal definition of genocide. His amendment deals with just genocide, and not any other human rights abuses. Therefore, unless an international body classifies crimes against humanity as genocide, his amendment will have no effect whatsoever.
Wayne David
I am a normal person, not a lawyer, and I am open to suggestions about what would be a legally tight definition. The important thing is that if the amendment were passed, I am sufficiently confident that His Majesty’s Government would draw up the correct legal definitions to ensure that the political views the Committee had expressed were made real. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but there is room for co-operation and hopefully a conclusion on this issue.
Felicity Buchan
I will address amendment 18 first and then the others. Amendment 18 would allow public authorities to choose not to procure from or invest in a company if that would give financial, economic or other benefit to a party that has breached international law.
The UK believes strongly in complying with its obligations under international law. That is why the Bill contains an exception to the ban for considerations that a decision maker reasonably considers are relevant to whether the decision would place the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under international law. Nothing in the Bill breaks international law, nor would it compel any public body to take a decision that would put the UK in breach of international law; but judgment on whether a body is guilty of a violation of international law is not a decision for public authorities. That should be determined by a competent court. I was slightly beaten to that point by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. Where there has been a judgment that a party has breached international law, the Government will review their response accordingly. Again, it is not the place of public authorities to do so.
The Bill already contains an exception to the ban for considerations relating to labour market misconduct, including modern slavery and human trafficking. That means that public authorities will be able to continue having regard to territorial considerations that are relevant to a breach of international treaties banning forced labour. We recognise that modern slavery often occurs in the supply chains of countries that are not party to international treaties on forced labour and that are unlikely to prosecute the perpetrators. Therefore, the Procurement Bill makes explicit provision for a new exclusion ground that does not require a conviction to disregard bids from suppliers that are known to use forced labour or perpetuate modern slavery.
Amendments 14, 19, 20 and 21 would add an exemption to the application of clause 1 for considerations relating to genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid. Apartheid is considered a crime against humanity. Although ethnic cleansing is not recognised as an independent crime under international law, the practice of ethnic cleansing may constitute genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. If genocide or a crime against humanity were ruled to have occurred by a competent national or international court—that is the important point—after consideration of all the evidence available in the context of a credible judicial process, it would send a strong signal to the international community. The Government would take any such ruling very seriously and consider their response, which could include the potential use of sanctions.
It is the long-standing policy of successive British Governments that judgment as to whether genocide or a crime against humanity has occurred is for a competent national or international court. It is not for the UK Government, and it is certainly not for public authorities to decide. For those reasons, I ask hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.
Chris Stephens
I am afraid we are not convinced by the Minister’s reply, and we will push some amendments to a vote. The amendments themselves refer to international law. Indeed, the Labour party’s amendment 14 defines genocide as having the same meaning as described under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, so that should allay some of the fears voiced by Government Members. For completeness and tidiness, I will push amendments 18, 20 and 21 to a vote and I will yield amendment 19—
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I have an absolutely simple question. I do not know whether the hon. Member knows the answer, but I have been wondering about this. I do not think any of us here would object to the idea of having some genocide provision, and I am conscious that my colleagues have referred to the International Criminal Court. Does the hon. Member know whether the situation affecting the Uyghurs at the present time would be caught by that provision?
Chris Stephens
I cannot give my good friend a definitive answer to that, but it certainly should be looked at. We could argue that what is happening is also ethnic cleansing. As the hon. Member knows, I have reiterated this a number of times. I have Uyghur Muslim constituents and their situation is very difficult. I end up in tears when they tell me what is going on in China. I am in tears when they tell me that they are trying to get family members here so that they can have some sort of a family reunion. Certainly somebody should look at whether it is ethnic cleansing or genocide. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.
I wish to push amendments 18, 20 and 21 to a vote, and I will yield to Labour colleagues if they wish to push amendment 14 to a vote.
Wayne David
Yes, we will be pushing amendment 14 to a vote. On the legal basis, we have expressed an opinion here, but of course the Government have constant legal advice during the passage of a Bill, and sometimes that legal advice is changed or modified in the light of representations and circumstances. I hope that that will happen here and that the Government will accept the need for definitions to be provided, provided we can unite around the objective of ensuring the word “genocide” is included.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 4, page 3, line 24, at end insert—
“(4) Nothing in this section requires any act or omission that conflicts with the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This amendment would ensure that any act or omission under the “gagging clause” in clause 4 would not conflict with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), in particular, Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) and Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the ECHR as incorporated by the HRA.
Ms Qaisar
Clause 4 is simply unworkable and not practical. During my contribution, I will outline the rationale for my amendment, but I wish to put on record that the SNP will not support the clause.
Amendment 24 inserts the proposed words to ensure that any act or omission under the clause would not conflict with the Human Rights Act 1998 and particularly with article 10 of the European convention on human rights, on freedom of expression, and article 9, on freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as incorporated by the HRA. Freedom of expression has long been seen as a cornerstone of democracy and the foundation for the rule of law. The ECHR gives political speech a high form of protection because of its crucial role in democracy. Any attempt to make it unlawful for public officials to be influenced by the political speech of others, or even to appear to have been so influenced, undermines freedom of expression. Public officials, in accordance with international law, have the qualified right to freedom of expression. That can be denied only under tightly prescribed conditions, which are not met in this legislation.
Amnesty International has outlined that the clause puts the UK at risk of breaking article 10 of the ECHR, which is protected under the Human Rights Act 1998. The Bill sets out a quasi-judicial review process and an enforcement regime that can be used to prevent or punish the making of statements. Both of those would amount to an interference with article 10 rights, in so far as they do not meet the necessity test. The ECHR considers that interference with the right to freedom of expression may entail a wide variety of measures, such as a formality, condition, restriction or penalty.
That raises the question of whether the proposed legislation’s interference with article 10 rights can be justified as being for a legitimate aim, which is defined in the ECHR as
“in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
None of those aims appears to apply in this case. Although the Government state in their impact assessment that the Bill is intended to
“prevent divisive behaviour that undermines community cohesion”,
they provide no specific examples, stating:
“The number of actual or attempted boycotts or divestments inconsistent with UK foreign policy is relatively low”.
In that context, interference with free speech appears to be disproportionate, given the importance of this right.
Clause 4 has baffled me. I will present the Minister with a hypothetical scenario, and I would appreciate clarification of it, if she would indulge me. Let us say, for argument’s sake, that a company based in Xinjiang that is complicit in poor factory working conditions is line for a contract with the Scottish Government. Non-governmental organisations have raised human rights concerns and, unrelated to that, the Minister in charge of procurement is invited on to “Question Time” that night, where a member of the public asks about the company. In my understanding of the Bill—I would appreciate clarification on this—the Minister cannot say the company will not be awarded the contract because of its poor factory working conditions. That is because, under the Bill, Ministers cannot make decisions based on territories, and the Scottish Government Minister would not be allowed to say that their choice would have been not to award the contract to that Xinjiang-based company—they might want to say that, but they would be unable to do so because of the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Act. However, the Minister could say that the contract would not be awarded to a company based in China because of general concerns about poor human rights records, not specific to Xinjiang.
Something else baffled me. That question was asked in a public forum, so let us say for argument’s sake that an MP and a councillor are also on the panel. My understanding is that, even if the Bill was clear that “decision maker” referred only to a public authority, its wider chilling effect is likely to engage article 10. That is because individuals who might influence the decision maker’s position would be heavily deterred from expressing views that could then be interpreted as influencing the decision maker based on political or moral disapproval.
Steve McCabe
I have to say that I agree with that last comment—I think clause 4 is unworkable, and it adds nothing to the Bill. It is a bit like clause 3(7). If anything, it undermines some of the intentions behind the Bill. Not surprisingly, it has been referred to as a gagging clause. It is virtually Kafkaesque, because it is coming a bit close to thought control. We are asked to accept that a person is not only prevented from doing something that contravenes clause 1 but that they are to be prevented from saying that, if it were perfectly legal to do so, they would want to do it. It would appear that they are not allowed to think that either. As I understand it, the Government say that the justification—this is an honourable aim—is that they are trying to protect community cohesion.
I ask hon. Members to pause for a second and work out how many people they know, and what institutions, would argue that community cohesion is being protected and safeguarded by these measures. The clause might prevent a person from saying that they intend to contravene clause 1 or that they would implement decisions that would, effectively, contravene clause 1 if it were legal to do, but it does not prevent them from saying a whole series of other abusive and offensive things about the state of Israel or anywhere else. In fact, it gives them a licence to say all those other things, and there is not a thing that can be done about it, provided they stay within the limits of existing law. I cannot see how this restriction is going to protect community cohesion. It is likely to have the opposite effect and to give those who do not share the Minister’s objectives on BDS a licence to look for ways to be abusive and offensive and still stay within the limits of the law.
I share the Minister’s desire to protect community cohesion and, as I have said, her overall objectives on the Bill, but I ask her to reflect on whether the proposals will really have the effect she seeks or whether it might be smarter to withdraw what is a pretty dysfunctional clause and go back to the drawing board to see whether there are more practical ways in which we could unite on protecting community cohesion.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the passionate and high-quality contributions from the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak. I rise to address the issue of whether clause 4 should stand part of the Bill, because the Opposition believe that it should not. As we have heard, this is the so-called gagging clause, and colleagues will remember the significant discomfort about this provision on both sides of the House on Second Reading. It takes the Bill far beyond the existing consensus on combatting BDS actions that target specific states and into the realms of placing serious restrictions on freedom of expression.
Having listened carefully throughout our proceedings, I still cannot understand why the Government are so attached to clause 4. The road it takes us down is not helpful, and it will only muddy the waters in terms of what the Government seek to do. Let us be clear what clause 4 does. As we have heard from colleagues, it prohibits public bodies—yes, the entity but, in reality, the people who make it up—from making a statement that they would breach clause 1, were they able to, as a result of moral or political disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct. It is one thing to say that they cannot do it; now, they cannot even say that they would wish to—they cannot even talk about it.
We have heard the Minister’s qualification, and I will turn to it shortly. However, we must assess what is on the face of the Bill, which is a really bizarre limit on freedom of expression and contrary to the British values on which we pride ourselves. I know that there are Conservative colleagues who pride themselves on being free speech champions—indeed, it is a big part of what they do in this place and online—and I say to them that this may well be their moment to prove that.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who spoke so powerfully on Second Reading about her experiences fighting the British National party and about why this clause cannot stand. She said:
“arguments are never won by suppressing democratic debate”.—[Official Report, 3 July 2023; Vol. 735, c. 615.]
I agree. That is a lesson that politicians on both the left and the right are still wrestling with—certainly in the online space—and need to learn.
There is also a wider problem. This is part of a broader range of efforts by the Government to curtail free expression—a legislative programme that has whittled away at the civic space over many years. That includes the Trade Union Act 2016, the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, the Public Order Act 2023 and more. The Bill adds to those as yet another unacceptable fetter on free expression. There is consensus to make progress on the Bill, but clause 4 is a particular sticking point.
We have heard from the Minister, in the evidence sessions and today, some admirable attempts to clear this up. She has said that this is a very narrowly understood restriction and that individuals who may be a decision maker on one day can talk in a personal capacity on another, when they are not making the decisions. I think that fails on three fronts.
First, that is not what it says on the face of the Bill. Clause 4(1) states that a statement of intent to “contravene section 1”, were that permissible, is not allowed and, at line 15, the words “(in whatever terms)” are added. I cannot square “in whatever terms” with what the Minister has said. If someone was on a television programme, could they have a disclaimer and set aside the “in whatever terms” provision? I do not think those two things sit together, and I feel confident that an enforcement authority relying on judicial review for oversight would fall back on what is on the face of the Bill, rather than what we have heard.
Secondly, I would argue that a person who is a decision maker because they lead a local authority, is a cabinet member or is even, perhaps, a member of the council or a Mayor is always a decision maker. I do not think that they can just turn it off or on. I do not think that saying that is credible. I know that when people overreach in what they say on social media or in the media more generally, they might try to disassociate themselves from it in an attempt to shield their colleagues, but I do not think they get much shrift in that. Never mind when we get to the conflation where—we have current precedent—a leader of a council is a Member of Parliament. We also have recent and multiple examples, including one that lasted a significant period, where a Member of Parliament was also an elected Mayor. Are they fettered from talking about foreign policy in debates in this place? Can they take off those hats? I do not believe that they credibly can.
Finally, and this is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, we heard on Second Reading, and we have heard in Committee, that the purpose of the clause is to stop decision makers adding to or creating a situation where a community, particularly a minority one, is made unsafe. This is important, and the evidence from the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies of British Jews brought that home. What the Minister has said in Committee, however, is that a decision maker could essentially say whatever they want, up to the point of advocating a boycott, and avoid that harm. As my hon. Friend says, it implies that a person can stand up and say anything they wish, in the most inflammatory terms, but that would not make people feel or be less safe. All that would do that would be the final phrase, “And I think we should boycott them.” I would say that the 200 words of inflammatory speech—of conspiracy theories and racist or hateful language—is where the harm is.
The clause does not add anything to the Bill, which leads us to our problem. We are being asked by the Government simultaneously to accept that the provision is broad enough to be impactful and to protect from harm, but narrow enough, as the Minister says, to apply in only a very small number of cases at a very small moment in time. I would say that those two things cannot be true together. The clause does not have to exist for the Bill to operate, which is why I believe we can safely vote against it without harming the overall goal.
Bob Blackman
Can I just put a contrary argument about the logic and flow of the Bill as planned? First, we have to look at clause 1. We are talking about individuals who are making decisions about placing contracts and buying goods and services from organisations that are affected by foreign policy. That is the first decision. Only the people in that position are affected in this way.
I am not a lawyer, either, but this is how I read the situation. A person cannot say, “I am going to break the law.” We cannot have an individual making a decision standing up and saying that. It clearly would be a contravention of the Bill and would be quite logical, and that is why we have clause 4(1)(a). If the person was to say, “If it were lawful to do so, I would act in this way,” that would create problems in community cohesion. We have seen that in what Leicester wanted to do, which is a prime example of what could happen if this clause is not included. From what I have heard, saying that this is about people in a representative democracy, whatever their guise, muddies the waters. The BDS movement focuses on Israel, the occupied territories and the Golan Heights, and it is targeting public authorities of all types.
Steve McCabe
The hon. Gentleman and I share a lot of common ground on various foreign affairs issues. I have been reflecting on what he is saying. He and I both take the view that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps should be banned, and we would like to see the Government act urgently on that. In the absence of a ban, if we were to go one step further and think of other ways in which we might be able to impact on the IRGC, would it be outrageous to say, “If it were legal to do so, I would do this and this”? Why would that be a breach?
Bob Blackman
I could call the hon. Gentleman my hon. Friend because we co-operate on many issues. As representatives we can speak out and ask for a change in the law, but it is not right for us to lobby organisations, individuals and public bodies to break the law. That is what is covered in the clauses. With respect, I think the wording could be cleverer or better. I am one of those individuals who passionately believes in free speech. I passionately believe that people in a democracy and elsewhere should be allowed to say what they believe. I share the sentiments expressed on Second Reading by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who has fought the British National party. Whenever we see extreme views with which we all disagree, we need to expose them in public and defeat them in an argument, rather than push them underground. My clear concern is that people could undermine community cohesion inadvertently. They probably would not mean to do so. There is no issue with making statements and having debates in councils, Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. The issue is one of breaching the law in terms of procurement, including of goods and services.
Chris Stephens
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous. Does he not concede that there is a real problem with the language in clause 4(1)(b), which states
“that the person would intend to act in such a way were it lawful to do so”?
That is a rather baffling sentence, is it not?
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman, but that is what I have said. In due course, perhaps on Report, the language may need to be tidied up. However, the intention is clear. The decision maker should not be saying, “If I was able to do it, I would make this decision.” I do not think it helps the public body or decision making if primary legislation passed through this House says that that would be unlawful. That would not help community cohesion and it would not protect public bodies against being accused of making decisions based on particular views rather than on their coherent procurement needs. I will conclude with that.
Chris Stephens
I know you are a seasoned political veteran, Sir George—it is always clause 4 that causes a problem, isn’t it? It is always clause 4, and the problem with this clause 4 is that it is the thought police clause. The difference is—[Interruption.] I have been rehearsing that one. I made that wisecrack privately to Sir George the other day, so yes. But this is the thought police clause. The normal police come for someone if they commit an act that is criminal, but the thought police are different. They act if someone “intends” to act in a particular way. Under the Bill, the authorities do not need to demonstrate any proof of intent to publish a particular kind of statement. That is impossible to do in the normal world, so let us just rely on telepathy to find out someone’s intent.
It gets worse, and I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East for taking my intervention. In clause 4, entitled “Related prohibition on statements”, subsection (1)(b) proposes that even
“were it lawful to do so”,
any alleged intent to do so would be a criminal act. You need only consult George Orwell on this, Sir George—prove me wrong if you can—because he says, “Yes, this is the Thinkpol, whose job is to monitor the citizens of Oceania and arrest all those who have committed thoughtcrime in challenge to the status quo authority of the Party and the regime of Big Brother.” Fortunately, there is an escape clause for the Government in clause 4, which states:
“This section does not apply to a statement by a Minister of the Crown”.
Lucky them—but not anybody else.
The convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, better known as the European convention on human rights, was opened for signature in Rome on 4 November 1950—only two years after George Orwell published his book “1984”. The world had just come through a period in which freedom of expression had been brutally suppressed. The ECHR, to which the UK is still a signatory, defines freedom of expression thus:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”
The purpose of the Bill is therefore to break an international convention and undermine a fundamental human right. Why would any Government do that? Is it because this is the red meat that the Tory party is throwing to people—a policy that actively restricts moral and political freedom of expression on human rights, environmental protections and workers’ rights? Are they playing to a narrow audience with dog-whistle policies? We can end this dystopian farce here and now.
Witness after witness, even the witnesses who support the Bill and support the Government’s position on the Bill, said—all of them—that they had difficulties with this clause and how it could possibly be enacted and enforced. We need to take account of that, and I ask the House to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts. If not, we certainly need to remove clause 4.
Felicity Buchan
I shall start by explaining why we do not support amendment 24, and I will then explain why we feel strongly that clause 4 needs to stand part of the Bill. I will address a few of the specific questions, but I will do so at the end, because I think it is important that hon. Members see the logical flow of the argument.
Amendment 24 seeks to ensure that none of the provisions in clause 4 will conflict with the Human Rights Act 1998. This amendment is unnecessary, as the Government’s assessment is that all the provisions in the Bill are consistent with the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights, including article 10, the right to freedom of expression.
The purpose of the European convention on human rights, which the Human Rights Act implemented into domestic law, is to regulate the relationship between the state and the individual and specifically to protect private persons’ fundamental rights from potential interference by the state. This includes private persons’ article 10 right to freedom of expression. Public authorities, which form part of the state or perform the state’s functions, are the potential perpetrators of ECHR violations and therefore do not have these rights. Public authorities do not have the rights; the rights are to protect private individuals and private bodies against state interference. This assessment was supported by several of the witnesses that the Committee heard from last week, and that is why we believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
Clause 4 prohibits public bodies from publishing statements indicating that they intend to engage in activity prohibited by this Bill. That includes statements indicating that the public body would have acted differently were the legislation not in place. It is important that we focus on public bodies, because this does not restrict the rights of individuals. We talked earlier about the difference, and the simplest way to express that is that if an individual is speaking on their own behalf, they are speaking as a private individual. However, if I say that I am speaking on behalf of my university or my local authority, then I speak on the behalf of a public body.
Academic freedom has been mentioned. If I am a university professor, which I am highly unlikely ever to be, I can say whatever I want. If, however, I stand up and say, “I, Felicity Buchan, speaking on behalf of Imperial College,” which is in my constituency, that is representing the view of Imperial College, as opposed to that of Felicity Buchan.
Ms Qaisar
The Minister is being generous with her time. If the councillor in the hypothetical scenario I gave wanted to make a point, would he have to say, “I am Joe Bloggs. I just so happen to be a councillor. I just so happen to be the leader of the council,” or can he say, “I am a councillor Joe Bloggs and I just so happen to be the leader of the council.” I still do not understand.
Felicity Buchan
I will go into detail on it. Give me one minute and I will go through all those scenarios.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
As Members of Parliament, we are always having to declare our interests if we think there is going to be a conflict. I asked a question yesterday about veterans’ health. I am the honorary president of the Royal British Legion. When discussing such topics, particularly when in front of the media, we know exactly where there could be a conflict of interest and therefore make the determination that it should be declared. We should therefore allow the legislation to stay as it is, because the distinction is clear between speaking on behalf of a public body and speaking as an individual elected to represent a point of view.
Felicity Buchan
I agree. That is the distinction between representing a public body and speaking as an individual, even if someone is an elected councillor.
Felicity Buchan
I am going to go into the detail on some points, and then I will take questions.
This clause does not impact an individual’s freedom to express a view. It is clear that declarations of boycotts and divestments are divisive and undermine community cohesion. These types of policies have no place in public bodies. We have seen examples of public bodies making declarations to boycott and divest as far as the law allows. Recent cases of declarations of anti-Israel boycotts that are not intended to be implemented, such as in Leicester, Swansea and Gwynedd councils, have been strongly opposed by Jewish groups. Such declarations are harmful even where the law does not allow boycotts and divestments. Therefore, such declarations cannot be made under the clause.
We heard repeatedly in evidence that a declaration stating, “We would boycott were it legal to do so,” is enough to trigger community friction and antisemitism issues. For instance, in 2014, Leicester City Council passed a motion targeting the activity of the Israeli state with a boycott
“insofar as legal considerations allow”.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Minister for the case that she is making. We agree with everything she said about that hateful speech, but the problem is that she just said, a minute before, that so long as a person essentially walks out of the council building, or says, “I am talking in an individual capacity”, despite being the leader of the council, they can say all those things and there is no protection under the clause. What meaningful advantage does the clause actually provide?
Felicity Buchan
This very much has the advantage of preventing Leicester City Council from making such a declaration. So anyone representing the views of Leicester City Council and saying, “I am standing here giving the views of Leicester City Council” is not allowed to do that.
Let me move on to exact circumstances. Under the clause, individuals, including councillors, are not prevented from making statements of their personal opinions freely in their own capacity. Councillors are not a public authority and, therefore, they will not be prevented from expressing their support for or voting in favour of a BDS motion. For example, representations made by councillors during a debate that indicate that they would be in favour of their local authority engaging in boycotts or a divestment campaign will not be captured by the clause. It will apply only to statements made on behalf of a local authority. Therefore, if a local authority published the minutes of a debate or a meeting in which a councillor said that they would be in favour of their local authority engaging in such campaigns, this would not be captured.
As I have promised, I will make that distinction clear in the Bill’s explanatory notes. We want this to be very clear. There is a real concern that recent declarations of anti-Israel boycotts, even when they are not implemented in practice, have driven and contributed to rising antisemitism.
Steve McCabe
I want to return to the example that the Minister cited relating to a personal or public persona. She said that if Felicity Buchan said something in a personal capacity, that would be fine, but if she said it as a professor or representative of an organisation, that would not. If Felicity Buchan were an extremely well-known, recognisable public figure, which she may well be one day, is it considerable that her personal persona would be divisible from her public persona in any credible way that courts or the wider public would recognise?
Felicity Buchan
The Bill is not distinguishing between personas, individual or public. It is a sentiment that I am giving as an individual, as opposed to doing so as leader of my council or head of my university, representing my university. It is about the distinction between the individual and the public body.
I am coming to the end of my remarks. We will put that distinction into very clear guidance in the explanatory notes.
Chris Stephens
It is important that we get to the bottom of this. There is a real enforcement difficulty here. Some newspapers are not always friendly to my party, some are not friendly to the Labour party, and some, believe it or not, are not friendly to the Conservative party. A newspaper could come up with a scenario in which it was quoting someone directly and giving the impression that that was their view on behalf of a public body, without expressing that that person was speaking in a personal capacity. That is a real difficulty. Of course, the other difficulty is that the Felicity Buchan we are referring to is a Minister of the Crown, so anything that Felicity Buchan says is completely exempt under the clause.
Felicity Buchan
On the point about what a newspaper may or may not infer, clearly for there to be enforcement it needs to be proved. We will go on to talk about enforcement later, but I think there is a clear distinction between stating something in a personal capacity and representing one’s institution. On that basis, I recommend that the amendment be rejected and that clause 4 stand part of the Bill.
Ms Qaisar
I thank hon. Members for all their comments. I agree with Opposition Members that clause 4 needs serious reworking or simply removal from the Bill. As has been mentioned, and as we heard in our evidence sessions, the clause marks a dangerous attack on the article 10 right to freedom of expression set out in the Human Rights Act. We must ensure that the Bill does not impede the rights of individuals freely to express their views.
I am sorry, but I am not reassured by the comments in the impact assessment and from the Minister that the Bill requires such strong provisions preventing freedom of expression. I am surprised that the Government have sought to include such provisions in the Bill. They seem to have failed to acknowledge that the clause has the potential to engage individuals’ human rights, as is proven by the lack of a human rights memorandum to accompany the legislation. I remind Government Members that this Government claim to be a bastion of free speech.
Ms Qaisar
The hon. Member says, “Hear, hear,” yet I imagine that he is about to vote for a clause that restricts free speech. I am somewhat perplexed.
This Government have passed legislation designed to protect academic freedom and have even appointed a supposed free speech tsar, yet the Bill seems to go against that. Clause 4 has the potential to shut down academic debate and limit academic freedom, which is integral to the higher education sector across all four nations. I am not convinced whatsoever by this clause. I will push amendment 24 to a vote, and I will vote against the clause in its entirety.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 6, page 4, line 28, at end insert—
“(3A) In relation to a decision or statement made by, or for the purposes of, a local authority, the enforcement authority is the Office for Local Government.”
This amendment changes the enforcement authority for local authorities from the Secretary of State or Treasury to the Office for Local Government.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 9, in clause 6, page 4, line 38, leave out subsection (6).
This amendment removes the provision allow the Secretary of State or Minister for the Cabinet Office to amend this section so as to change the enforcement authority in relation to a particular description of decision or statement.
Clause stand part.
Alex Norris
Clause 6 sets out the enforcement authorities for the Bill’s provisions. Subsection (2) sets out that the enforcement authority is the Secretary of State or the Treasury, unless otherwise stated. Subsection (4) states that for any decision or statement made by an English higher education provider, the enforcement authority will be the Office for Students. On the face of it, that seems a fairly benign set-up for enforcement, but it creates a distinction in how the Bill treats different public bodies, on which I would like to press the Minister.
On the one hand, the Bill is saying that enforcement against higher education providers will be given over to a third actor, the Office for Students. On the other hand, it is saying that local government will be policed by national Government instead. Amendment 8 tries to put those things on a more consistent footing and to say that there should be less variance in enforcement. The amendment puts forward the Office for Local Government as a more suitable authority for enforcement of the Bill’s provisions in relation to local government.
I hope that the Minister will cover this issue in her response, because I do not know why there is divergence. She can put me right if I am wrong, but I fear that this is a continuation of central Government’s heavy-handed manner with regard to local authorities. Part of the problem with our approach is that we get devolution when local leaders get the answer “right”, but not so much when central Government disagree with them. Adding clause 6 to the Bill unamended will continue the trend of the Government wishing to keep the reins on local government. Given that they have already chosen to use the Office for Students, surely aligning that with the Office for Local Government would make an awful lot more sense.
Amendment 9 is similar to my amendment 4 on Henry VIII powers. The Government are reserving the ability to change the enforcement authorities as they wish under subsection (6). Amendment 9 seeks to delete that provision and ensure that we can set out, through normal parliamentary processes, who will enforce the legislation. Local councils are not going to change that much, and public bodies generally are not going to change that much, but the Government need emergency powers to vary the enforcement agency. If the Government wish to do things a certain way, they should put that in the Bill, and if they wish to change it they should return to Parliament through primary processes.
Felicity Buchan
I urge the Committee to reject the amendments. Let me explain why.
Amendment 8 would establish the Office for Local Government as the enforcement authority in relation to a decision or statement made by local authorities, except where specified otherwise. We have carefully considered the most appropriate enforcement authorities across the sectors that are covered by the Bill; for example, the Pensions Regulator has an existing role in regulating the administration and governance of the local government pension scheme. Although we are expanding some powers, the enforcement authorities listed in the Bill already have an existing role in enforcement for those public authorities. That is not the case for the Office for Local Government, which the hon. Member for Nottingham North is proposing.
The Office for Local Government is not envisaged as an enforcement authority for anything. It is intended to provide data and analysis about the performance of local government and to support its improvement, but it is not envisaged to have a role in regulating local government’s activities. It would therefore not be appropriate for it to have an enforcement role against local authorities in this context. Furthermore, Oflog is an office of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and, as such, does not have a statutory basis. The effect of amendment 8 would therefore be to keep responsibility with the Secretary of State.
Amendment 9 would remove the power given to the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office to change the enforcement authorities in relation to a decision or statement captured by the Bill. The Bill will provide a power for the Secretary of State and other enforcement authorities to issue compliance notices, and to investigate and fine public bodies, where there is a breach of the ban. Public bodies subject to the ban will also be susceptible to judicial review if they break this law.
We have carefully considered the most appropriate enforcement authorities across some of the sectors covered by the Bill, such as the Pensions Regulator. For higher education providers on the register of the Office for Students, the Office for Students should be the responsible enforcement authority. As the Bill is drafted, the Secretary of State or the Treasury should be the enforcement authority for all other public bodies subject to clauses 1 and 4. Ministers of the Crown are not subject to the additional enforcement regime but are subject to judicial review.
In time, the most appropriate regulators for each of the sectors covered by the Bill may change. The Bill provides the necessary flexibility, via the power given to the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office, to update the respective enforcement authorities if they change. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Nottingham North to withdraw his amendments.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. I do not intend to press either amendment to a Division, but I will make a couple of points in response.
The Minister mentions that Oflog may not sit elegantly with the Office for Students, because the Office for Students has an existing role doing this type of activity, whereas Oflog does not. However, Oflog was only established in June, so of course it does not have a similar record or similar experience, but that is a person-made thing that could be changed. The Minister also says that Oflog was not envisaged as an enforcement authority, but I cannot believe that the Office for Students was ever really envisaged to be an enforcement authority either.
Similarly, the default enforcement authority in the Bill is the Secretary of State. I do not think that many people go to the ballot box imagining the capacities of different Secretaries of State to kick doors in; I hope not, anyway, because they certainly would not cast a ballot for me. I am therefore not wholly convinced that that is a brilliant argument against the amendment.
I also cannot accept the final point that the most appropriate agency may change in time. If that were the case as a result of the disestablishment of the Office for Students, say, that would itself require primary legislation, and the enforcement agency would be changed routinely as part of that. I do not think that Ministers should have the ability to change enforcement agencies on a whim—because one agency does not give the answers they want, for example—but I think there is a real risk of that. However, I do not think that that is enough to divide the Committee at this point, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jacob Young.)
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (Sixth sitting)
Thursday 14th September 2023
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 September 2023 - (14 Sep 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 7, page 5, line 8, leave out
“, or is about to make”.
This amendment, together with Amendments 26, 27, 28 and 29, would remove the ability of information notices and compliance notices to be given to public bodies prior to an actual contravention of the ban.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 26, in clause 7, page 5, line 12, leave out
“, or is likely to contravene”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 25.
Amendment 27, in clause 7, page 5, line 15, leave out
“, or is about to publish,”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 25.
Amendment 28, in clause 7, page 5, line 18, leave out
“, or is likely to contravene,”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 25.
Amendment 29, in clause 8, page 6, line 6, leave out
“, or is likely to contravene”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 25.
Chris Stephens
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Caroline.
In considering this clause, we will continue some of the debates we had on clause 4 on Tuesday. We have heard many similar views from a range of parties that the Bill is an unethical attempt to stifle freedom of expression and legitimate concerns of councils and other publicly funded bodies. They will face significant fines for being about to, or likely to, associate with international norms of behaviour. And who will be empowered to conduct investigations into those suspected breaches? Why, it will be UK Government Ministers themselves who are granted that authority! There go freedom of expression and the rule of law. I ask Members to support the SNP amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
Amendments 25 to 29 would remove enforcement authorities’ power to give information notices and compliance notices in anticipation of a contravention of the ban.
First and foremost, the powers given to enforcement authorities to be used before such a breach will prevent the sort of deeply divisive activity that we have heard about from representatives of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council in oral evidence. It is obviously much better to prevent a breach of the ban in the first place than to wait for a divisive boycott or divestment policy to be put in place before taking action.
I reassure hon. Members that that does not mean that there will be active monitoring of public authorities. Potential breaches will be investigated as and when they are brought to the attention of enforcement authorities by third parties. When flagged to enforcement authorities, it is only where relevant to a potential breach of clause 1 or 4 that an information notice may be issued to require information from a relevant public body.
Finally, the enforcement regime does not provide unprecedented powers for enforcement authorities. It is based on existing regimes. The powers are based on those that the Office for Students already has for regulating universities, and the powers to enforce the ban for local government pension schemes are similar to those that the Pensions Regulator already has. I therefore ask that the amendments be withdrawn.
Chris Stephens
We wish to test the will of the Committee on the matter. I ask Members to support our amendments.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 7, page 5, line 32, leave out subsection (8).
This amendment removes provisions stipulating that providing information in compliance with an information notice does not breach obligations of confidence or other restrictions on disclosure.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Caroline.
Clause 7 sets out the significant powers to compel information that will be made available to the enforcement authorities detailed in clause 6. As we have heard, the enforcement authority will most often be the Secretary of State. The provisions in clause 7 provide enforcement authorities with the power to prepare and issue an information notice to request from a relevant public body information relating to a decision in respect of the Bill. The enforcement authority—usually the Secretary of State, as I say—can request any information likely to be useful for it to assess whether the provisions of the Bill have been contravened or are likely to be contravened.
Provision is also made in respect of clause 4, the gagging clause. Clause 7 means that the enforcement authority can request information if it is satisfied that a public body subject to the Bill is about to publish, may publish or has already published a statement prohibited by the Bill. The most egregious provision is subsection (8), which provides:
“A person providing information in compliance with an information notice does not breach—
(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person in respect of the information, or
(b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).”
“However imposed” is a challenging phrase. It seems to grant the Secretary of State or other relevant bodies the power to issue notices that would not only require all information to be handed over, but override normally protected duties of confidentiality, safeguarding or legal privilege. That is very significant. We would argue that those powers of investigation go beyond the powers of the security services to compel information. There is no clarity or sense of what checks and balances there are. Even the security services, which do not have that degree of power, have oversight mechanisms such as the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. Frankly, this seems to be a very strong power to reserve to the Security of State or, indeed, the Office for Students.
We have heard evidence from multiple witnesses who are concerned about these provisions. We did hear from others who are less concerned, but even if colleagues consider the case I have set out to be wrong or overstated, the ambiguity is obvious. At the very least, the Bill is not clear enough. It is important to say that the Government do not—if I have understood properly what the Minister told the Committee last week—want the provisions to supersede legal privilege. That is welcome, and I am keen to have similar commitments regarding safeguarding duties. If that is the case, amendment 10 promotes that.
I believe that the Government ought to accept our amendment, or at least propose an alternative in lieu. What is in the Bill seems overbearing; if not overbearing, it is definitely unclear. That, at least, must be resolved.
Felicity Buchan
Amendment 10 would remove clause 7(8), which stipulates that providing information in compliance with an information notice does not breach obligations of confidence or other restrictions on disclosure.
The intention behind clause 7 is to provide a power for enforcement authorities to issue information notices to require information from a relevant public body relating to a decision in respect of the Bill. As drafted, the clause sets out a necessary and proportionate power for enforcement authorities properly to investigate potential breaches of the ban.
I must be clear that the clause does not place an undue burden on public bodies in scope of the ban. Information may be requested only if the enforcement authority is satisfied that a person has made or will make a decision or statement in breach of the Bill and that the information is likely to be useful for the enforcement authority’s investigation. Subsection (8) provides standard wording in order to give assurance to the person complying with the information notice that they will not be breaching an obligation of confidence or any other restriction on disclosure. The Bill is by no means unique in including such drafting; the same caveat is provided for in the Agriculture Act 2020, the Building Safety Act 2022 and the Health and Care Act 2022, for example.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North has said that he is concerned that the subsection would override the privilege between lawyer and client. I can reassure him that it does not. Legal professional privilege is a fundamental common-law right, including for those public bodies captured by the Bill, and specific words would not be needed to override it. The information power therefore does not extend to legally privileged material; I can confirm that I will clarify that point explicitly in the Bill’s explanatory notes. I would also add that Richard Hermer KC has subsequently clarified, in written evidence to the Committee on this point, his view that it is likely that a court would not deem legal professional privilege to be overridden by the clause.
Subsection (8) does not provide a right to extract the information, nor does it give a power to the Government; it simply provides the person who is disclosing information necessary to investigate a potential breach with protection against a claim for breach of confidence or any other restriction. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
It is really important that legislation passed by the House be clear and unambiguous. As we have heard repeatedly in this Committee from a wide variety of sources, including witnesses who gave oral evidence and those who submitted written evidence, the Bill fails that test.
This subsection is another example of that. The open-ended reference to
“any other restriction on the disclosure of information”
makes no distinction, for example, between somebody expressing a view in a private and in a professional capacity. That cannot be right. Subsection (8) should be deleted.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen for her very effective contribution, with which I agree.
I hear what the Minister says about the intention behind the clause and about whether it is necessary and proportionate. I can probably agree with “necessary”, but there is still a divergence of views between us on “proportionate”. I also hear what the Minister says about commonality with other pieces of legislation. I am willing to accept that clause 7(8) is not a unique provision, but I do not think that that means that it is therefore the right provision. It could be badly drafted here and elsewhere too; that would not be without precedent.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 7, page 5, line 39, leave out from “legislation” to end of line 41.
This amendment is to probe the way the legislation appears to “qualify” the data protection legislation.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline.
Like previous clauses that we have discussed, clause 7 is poorly drafted. It hands enforcement authorities powers that risk infringing on civil liberties such as the right to a private life. The clause allows an enforcement authority to compel a person suspected of contravening a ban to provide information, including personal information about people involved with a decision. It is clear that the intention is to prevent a public body from contravening clause 4, the so-called gagging clause. However, the broadness of the clause risks casting too wide a net and infringing on personal data. My amendment 33 seeks clarity from the Government as to how the clause will interact with existing data protection legislation.
Data law exists to protect people’s privacy and data, but the Bill is confusingly drafted. In its current form, the clause could be interpreted as implying that existing data protection legislation is to be read in line with the Bill, rather than the other way around. That obviously raises issues about an individual’s right to data privacy. The circularity of the drafting could potentially mean information disclosure obligations superseding data protection legislation. As has been raised numerous times under other clauses, the drafting clearly suggests that little thought has gone into the powers granted to enforcement authorities. It is unclear whether any assessment has taken place of the legal necessity of the powers or of whether they are proportionate under the General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018.
The drafting of clause 7(8) is particularly concerning. It provides that disclosure of information under the provisions will not breach
“any obligation of confidence owed by the person in respect of the information, or…any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).”
That is such a broad definition that it potentially includes everything from contractual restrictions and court orders to legal professional privilege and even statutory restrictions on information disclosures.
Many people have raised these concerns, as we know from our evidence sessions last week and from written submissions. I am sure that granting such expansive powers was not the Government’s intention in drafting the clause. I hope that the Minister will provide an explanation of why they have drafted the legislation so confusingly in respect of data protection and why they are granting such expansive powers to enforcement authorities.
The clause has the potential to allow a severe intrusion on an individual’s right to privacy under article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which provides the right to a private life. The grounds on which information can be requested are very wide: someone would need merely to be suspected of being in the process of potentially making a prohibited decision or statement to be required to hand over information. That is compounded by the requirement to provide any information that is
“likely to be useful to the enforcement authority”.
It would be beneficial if the Government explained what kind of information could be requested through an information notice.
Amendment 33 is a probing amendment, so I will not push it to a vote, but I hope that the Government will provide further detail on what evidence individuals will have to provide when issued with an information notice, as well as looking again at the broad powers granted under the clause.
Felicity Buchan
Amendment 33 would remove the part of clause 7 that refers to compliance with data protection legislation, specifically the requirement that the provisions of the clause should be taken into account when determining whether the provision of information would contravene data protection legislation. Importantly, an information notice does not require the provision of information if this would be in contravention of the data protection legislation.
The clause provides a lawful basis for sharing information. This is a standard drafting mechanism that respects the principles of data protection; it does not alter the principles of data protection. As I have already set out, the Bill is by no means unique in including this drafting, which features in various pieces of existing legislation, such as the Building Safety Act 2022 and the Agriculture Act 2020. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts to withdraw the amendment.
Ms Qaisar
I thank the Minister for her response, but I do not think it goes far enough in addressing the concerns that I and other Members have raised. I heard what she said, and I understand from her previous contributions that some additions will be made to the explanatory notes. I am slightly concerned that, when they made concessions on clause 7 and others, the Government said that there will simply be additions to the explanatory notes, rather than anything on the face of the Bill. I hope the Minister will go back and seriously consider how to tighten up the language in the clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Monetary penalties: power
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 11, in clause 10, page 7, line 20, at end insert
“within 60 days of the passage of this Act.”
This amendment specifies that regulations prescribing a maximum monetary penalty must be made within 60 days of the Bill being passed
Amendment 12, in clause 10, page 7, line 21, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 13, would require the publication of regulations in matters to which the enforcement authority must, or must not, have regard in exercising its powers within 60 days of the passage of the Act.
Amendment 13, in clause 10, page 7, line 23, at end insert
“within 60 days of the passage of this Act.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 12.
Clause 10 stand part.
Alex Norris
I rise to speak to amendments 11 to 13, which relate to clauses 9 and 10. Clause 10(1) states that:
“The Secretary of State must, by regulations, prescribe a maximum penalty for the purposes of section 9”.
Clause 9 states that an enforcement authority may impose a monetary penalty on someone if they do not comply with the provisions of the Bill. Similarly, clause 10(2) states that:
“The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about matters to which the enforcement authority must, or must not, have regard in exercising its powers under section 9”,
which refers to the power to impose monetary penalties.
The regulations set by the Secretary of State will be highly consequential, because they will show how the sharper elements of the Bill, which we have already discussed, will interact with the rights and freedoms of individuals. They will outline the monetary penalty, but also what the enforcement authority—most often, the Secretary of State—will weigh in making a decision. As drafted the Bill does not specify when the Secretary of State must make these regulations and when they will take effect. That leaves a degree of ambiguity, and a gap where people will be waiting to see when the provisions start to bite.
The Minister previously talked about measures being necessary and proportionate. It is necessary to have an enforcement regime, and proportionate for the shoe to drop at some point; otherwise there is no point in having the legislation. Also, having made a significant number of points around Henry VIII provisions, and, at length, been quite displeased by some of them, even someone with my hard heart would say that it is proportionate for those to be set by regulations, because they will change over time.
The quid pro quo for that is what I have set out in amendments 11, 12 and 13, which remove some of the ambiguity and has the Government say when they intend to set the regulations. These probing amendments—I will not press them to a Division—set out what ought to happen within 60 days of Royal Assent, which would give a degree of clarity for those who are getting their decisions in order and understanding when the provisions are likely to fall. I think that is proportionate. If 60 days is too short or long a period, I hope the Minister will say when the Government intend to do this. I suspect they want to get on with it, but people ought to have that clarity.
Felicity Buchan
Amendment 11 would require the Secretary of State, via regulations, to set a maximum fine that can be imposed on public authorities in breach of the ban within 60 days of the Bill being passed. The suggestion by the hon. Member for Nottingham North to set a deadline of 60 days for the Secretary of State, while well intentioned, is inappropriate.
It is crucial that the threshold for fines is carefully decided in consultation with enforcement authorities, including the Office for Students and The Pensions Regulator. Since that will also be done by the affirmative procedure, the measure will need to go through both Houses. It will need to go through the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the House of Lords, and it would need to be debated in both Houses. Clearly, it is a piece of legislation that the Government want to be implemented, so I give the Committee my word that we will do this as expeditiously as possible. It is wrong, however, to commit to 60 days.
The same arguments apply to amendments 12 and 13. We agree that expediency in setting out details of the enforcement regime is important, but we need to take into account proper consultation with the regulators and enforcement authorities, as well as due scrutiny in both Houses. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member for Nottingham North to withdraw the amendments—I know that he said they were probing amendments.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that answer from the Minister. I am happy to withdraw the amendment on that basis. The point about consultation is important, so I hope that is a full consultation, both with potential enforcement authorities and those who speak for those that are going to fall under the provisions, such as the Local Government Association.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Application of prohibitions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Norris
Clause 12 adds back the local government pension scheme. We heard in evidence just how seriously the local government pension scheme takes its fiduciary duties. This is overreach. The case for the inclusion of the local government pension scheme is weak. Again, I think this will play out later down the line in further discussions in the other place. Its inclusion, which is significant and will add an extra burden and anxiety for people working hard to deliver important benefits for their members, is not really necessary, so I hope the Minister will reflect on that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 13 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
General provision
12 noon
The Chair
Amendments 16 and 17 to clause 17 were debated in an earlier group. I have not selected those amendments for separate decision, because they are incompatible with an earlier decision, namely that clause 2 stand part of the Bill.
Amendment proposed: 1, in clause 17, page 10, line 39, at end insert—
“(1A) Section 1 does not apply to decisions made by—
(a) Scottish Ministers, unless a motion has been passed by the Scottish Parliament indicating its consent to this Act;
(b) Welsh Ministers, unless a motion has been passed by Senedd Cymru indicating its consent to this Act;
(c) a Northern Ireland department, unless a motion has been passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly indicating its consent to this Act.”—(Wayne David.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Chris Stephens
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
One definition of a human being is that they learn from their mistakes. To do so, they must review their actions against a set of criteria, often through an impact assessment, so as to identify any error, misjudgment or unintended consequence that they may have created. That sometimes leads to a revision or reversal of prior actions. I am sure that we all agree with that statement, given that we are all human beings, are we not? The principle applies to presumptions as well as actions. I am sure the Government hope this legislation will impact only on the countries and territories explicitly named in the Bill, but that may be presumptuous. New clause 1 provides a list of countries whose behaviour might change as a consequence of the Bill being enacted. It might change them for the better, but we ought to be aware that some will see it as a green light to expand their breaches of human rights, confident in the knowledge that the UK has turned a blind eye to their behaviour, all in the interest of expanding trade. We believe that the impact assessment and the timescales proposed are realistic and essential to the reputation of the UK. I ask the Committee to send a clear message to those countries by supporting the new clause.
Felicity Buchan
I urge hon. Members to reject the new clause. It would give the Secretary of State or Minister for the Cabinet Office a new duty to conduct an assessment, six months after passage of the Act, of its impact on the UK’s trade and diplomatic relations with the countries identified by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office as human rights priority countries.
The UK Government’s trade positions and diplomatic efforts will not be affected by the Bill. Its intent is to ensure that the UK speaks with one voice internationally; it is not to hamper diplomatic relations by publishing arbitrary impact assessments for the countries listed in the new clause. The Bill makes clear where the power to conduct foreign policy is, and allows other public bodies to focus on their core duties. It does not change any aspect of the UK’s foreign policy.
That is not to say that the Government will not carry out impact assessments on international matters when needed. Indeed, we are already committed to producing independently scrutinised impact assessments, such as those for new free trade agreements. Moreover, as with any Act that the House passes, once the Bill is an Act it can be subjected to post-legislative scrutiny by a parliamentary Select Committee to assess how it has worked in practice since coming into force. The additional impact assessment proposed by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West is unnecessary. For those reasons, I ask him to withdraw the new clause.
Chris Stephens
I have listened carefully to the Minister. If I understood her correctly, she said that the Bill does not change Foreign Office policy. Many Opposition Members believe that some provisions in the Bill actually do change Foreign Office policy, and we explored that in an earlier exchange. Many of us believe that we are using a domestic Bill to change Foreign Office policy, and if we are doing that, I insist that the Committee divide on the new clause.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Will the hon. Member explain the basis on which he selected his large number of countries and excluded others?
Chris Stephens
As a member of this Committee, the hon. Gentleman could have tabled an amendment to the new clause or even his own amendment. Those countries were selected because of concerns with the human rights abuses that are taking place. Perhaps that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman enough for him to support the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Felicity Buchan
May I take this opportunity to thank the entire Committee? We have worked effectively and expeditiously. I also thank the two Chairs and the Clerks.
Alex Norris
Similarly, I want to put on record our thanks to you, Dame Caroline, and Sir George, to the top-class Clerks for all their help, to the civil servants for their work and to my colleagues. I draw special attention to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who was shadow Secretary of State on Second Reading, for her efforts and support while we have been getting our work together, and to the Minister for her collegiate work, both inside and outside this room. I also thank her colleagues.
Chris Stephens
May I first thank you, Dame Caroline, and Sir George for chairing these sittings? I also commend all Members. There has been much debate around the Bill, and many of us have regarded it as essential that we debate it in a tone that is appropriate but also robust. I think we have done that in this Committee. I would like to thank all hon. Members for the tone they have adopted and also for their good humour. That has been essential for the Bill, which has been fairly controversial.
We will obviously reflect on the changes we want to see in the stages to come. I do think there is going to be a challenge on the Government’s side, because a number of their Members are very critical of the Bill. The fact that no amendments have been agreed will be a test for them. I again thank you, Dame Caroline, and Sir George, as well as the Clerks, for all the help we have had.
Lastly, it was unfortunate that there was no evidence from a Palestine support group in our evidence sessions. I do not believe there was a conspiracy on that. I think it was perhaps more cock-up than conspiracy, but I hope it is something we will all learn from. We should have all views heard, and we might all want to take that point away and reflect on it.
Bob Blackman
On that point, the Committee received correspondence today from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Conservative Members’ inboxes have certainly been filled with over 2,500 emails from people who are sending a template email that is factually inaccurate. It would be helpful to know from the Clerks or you, Dame Caroline, whether there will be a response to the correspondence we have had or whether we as individuals will have to respond and point out the facts. Personally, I have three or four emails from constituents, but the emails have come in from literally all over the country to everyone else. Frankly, it is a complete waste of their time and effort.
The point the Palestine Solidarity Campaign has made is reasonable given the information that has been supplied to it, but we need to correct the record on how the witnesses were chosen and on the offer that was made in terms of correspondence and evidence so that we could carefully consider all sides. As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West has referred to, we have to go through Report, Third Reading and the other place. It would be grossly unfair, given all the work the Committee has done, were it suggested that we were one-sided and did not hear the other side of the argument.
The Chair
Unfortunately, there is no formal route for the Committee as a whole to make a statement, but Members had the opportunity to discuss the issue last Thursday, and in making his comments now, the hon. Gentleman has put his very well-reasoned thoughts on the record. I would suggest that Members do have to respond individually to correspondence they get, but the hon. Gentleman can now refer to his comments, which are on the record and there for everyone to see.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. We should make it clear to members of the public who are listening or reading Hansard afterwards that individual Members of Parliament have had no influence on who comes to give evidence and who does not. The aggressive nature of what we and our staff have experienced this week really is not acceptable. We are here trying to do the best job we can, and we have had no influence on who does and does not come here to give evidence. I just wanted to put that on the record.
The Chair
The Committee did agree a resolution about who would come in to give evidence; that agreement was debatable and amendable. But the hon. Lady’s point is well made and is now on the record.
Chris Stephens
I would not usually try to intervene again, Dame Caroline, especially when I am trying to get to another debate, but I thank Government Members for raising this issue. I have had 2,700 emails, so I think that everyone on the Committee has got the emails. I suggest that this matter is raised through the usual channels. I think there was a cock-up rather than a conspiracy; the email address of one of the organisations was certainly on our suggested list. I think it would help all of us if there was a template response agreed via the usual channels. I put that forward as a suggestion to take to the usual channels to see whether we can come up with something that would be a template for us all.
The Chair
The Whips on both sides will have heard that, and I suggest they take it away and come up with a solution that is acceptable to everybody.
Lia Nici
May I clarify for the record that, as a general rule, Members of Parliament do not make contact with people who are not their own constituents? I will not ask my hard-pressed team in the constituency to respond to people who are not constituents. That is parliamentary protocol. No constituents have got in touch with me about this matter, and I will not be requesting that my team respond to non-constituents, because we need to work with people who really need our help.
Felicity Buchan
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. It may be useful if I spend one minute explaining how the witness list comes about. Each party suggests witnesses, and then a Programming Sub-Committee agrees the list of witnesses. I just wanted to clarify that point.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill
Wednesday 25th October 2023
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 25 October 2023 - (25 Oct 2023)
17:36 - The House divided: - Ayes: 200 / Noes: 273 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:49 - The House divided: - Ayes: 197 / Noes: 276 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:02 - The House divided: - Ayes: 207 / Noes: 269 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 197 / Noes: 275 - Question accordingly negatived.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Economic impact assessment for Wales—
“Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Minister for the Cabinet Office must lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the Act on the economy in Wales.”
New clause 3—Assessment of the impact of the Act on the provision of food compliant with religious dietary beliefs and on the prevention of discrimination—
“Within six months of the passage of this Act, a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament a statement on their assessment of the impact of the Act on—
(a) the procurement of food meeting religious dietary beliefs, and
(b) the prevention of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief.”
Amendment 12, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, at end insert—
“(1A) But subsection (2) does not have effect in relation to a decision which falls within the competency of Senedd Cymru unless Senedd Cymru has passed a resolution granting its consent to the application of that subsection to such decisions.”
This amendment would require the consent of Senedd Cymru for the Bill to apply to decisions within the sphere of Welsh devolved legislative competence.
Amendment 26, page 1, line 5, leave out
“must not have regard to a territorial consideration”
and insert “must not act”.
This amendment, and Amendment 27, would remove the reference to a “territorial consideration” in the legislation.
Amendment 36, page 1, line 6, leave out from “would” to “was” in line 7, and insert “is”.
This amendment is to probe the use of a subjective, rather than an objective, test to establish whether a decision-maker has contravened clause 1.
Amendment 35, page 1, line 6, leave out from “that” to “influenced” in line 7 and insert “is”.
This amendment is to probe the use of a subjective, rather than an objective, test to establish whether a decision-maker has contravened clause 1.
Amendment 27, page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment, and Amendment 26, would remove the reference to a “territorial consideration” in the legislation.
Amendment 37, page 1, leave out lines 20 to 22.
This amendment is to probe the impact of the legislation on individuals, such as those working within public authorities.
Amendment 34, in clause 2, page 2, line 4, at end insert—
“(1A) But section 1 does not apply to decisions of Scottish Ministers.”
This amendment would remove decisions of Scottish Ministers from the scope of the Bill.
Amendment 14, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
This amendment would remove provisions allowing Ministers to amend the Schedule, via regulations, to add a description of decision or consideration, or amend or remove considerations added under previous regulations.
Amendment 18, page 2, line 28, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment, and Amendments 19 and 20, seek to remove Scotland from the extent of this Bill.
Amendment 13, page 2, line 40, at end insert—
“(4A) Section 1 does not apply to a decision which has been made in accordance with a Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights.
(4B) A Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights—
(a) is a public authority’s policy criteria relating to disinvestment in cases concerning contravention of human rights; and
(b) must be applied consistently by the public authority to all foreign countries.
(4C) Within 60 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish, and lay before Parliament, guidance on the form, content and application of Statements for the purposes of this section
(4D) Public authorities must have regard to the guidance referenced in subsection (4C) when devising a Statement.”
This amendment would exempt public bodies from the prohibition in section 1, where the decision has been made in accordance with a Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights. A Statement may not single out individual nations, but would have to be applied consistently, and in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 7, page 3, line 7, leave out subsection (7).
This amendment would remove the prohibition on the Government specifying Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the Occupied Golan Heights as a country or territory to which the prohibition on boycotts does not apply, meaning they are treated just as all other countries and territories.
Amendment 21, page 3, line 11, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
This amendment would remove the existing stipulation that the power to exempt a country or territory from section 1 may not be used in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the Occupied Golan Heights.
Amendment 2, page 3, line 13, leave out clause 4.
Amendment 3, in clause 4, page 3, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment would remove the prohibition on a person publishing a statement indicating that they would have acted in a way prohibited by clause 1 if it were legal to do so.
Amendment 16, page 3, line 24, at end insert—
“(4) This section does not apply to—
(a) a local authority,
(b) an elected mayor of a local authority
(c) a mayor for the area of a combined authority,
(d) the Mayor of London,
(e) the London Assembly
(f) the Scottish Parliament, or
(g) Senedd Cymru.”
This amendment would exempt elected bodies from the prohibition on making public statements indicating that they intend to, or would intend to if it were lawful, act in a way that would contravene section 1.
Amendment 28, page 3, line 24, at end insert—
“(4) Nothing in this section requires any act or omission that conflicts with the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This amendment would ensure that any act or omission under the “gagging clause” in clause 4 would not conflict with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), in particular, Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) and Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the ECHR as incorporated by the HRA.
Amendment 29, in clause 7, page 5, line 8, leave out “, or is about to make”.
This amendment, together with Amendments 30 to 33, would remove the ability of information notices and compliance notices to be given to public bodies prior to an actual contravention of the ban.
Amendment 30, page 5, line 12, leave out “, or is likely to contravene”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 29.
Amendment 31, page 5, line 15, leave out “, or is about to publish,”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 29.
Amendment 32, page 5, line 18, leave out “, or is likely to contravene,”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 29.
Amendment 38, page 5, line 39, leave out from “legislation” to the end of line 41.
This amendment is to probe the way the legislation appears to “qualify” the data protection legislation.
Amendment 33, in clause 8, page 6, line 6, leave out “, or is likely to contravene”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 29.
Amendment 4, in clause 12, page 8, line 4, at end insert—
“(1A) But section 1 does not apply in relation to a fund investment decision made by such a manager if the decision has been approved by a majority of those voting in a ballot of the members of the fund; and section 4 does not apply to any statement—
(a) made for the purpose of preparing for or explaining the purpose of such a ballot;
(b) concerning a decision which has been approved by such a ballot.”
This amendment would allow a local government pension fund to act in a way prohibited by clause 1 if the decision to do so is approved by a majority of scheme members, and would prevent statements about or following such a ballot being prohibited by clause 4.
Amendment 19, in clause 17, page 10, line 38, leave out “Scotland”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 18.
Amendment 20, page 11, line 19, leave out “Scotland”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 18.
Amendment 5, in the schedule, page 12, line 21, at end insert—
“3A Section 1 does not apply to—
(a) a registered higher education provider in England, as defined by section 3(10) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017;
(b) an institution within the higher education sector in Wales, as defined by section 91 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;
(c) an institution within the higher education sector in Scotland, as defined by section 56 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992;
(d) a higher education institution in Northern Ireland, as defined by article 30 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1993.”
This amendment would remove universities and other higher education providers from the requirement to act in accordance with clause 1.
Amendment 6, page 13, line 5, at end insert—
“6A Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as it relates to conduct which it is the position of His Majesty’s Government represents a breach of international law.”
This amendment would permit decisions which would otherwise be in breach of clause 1 if they are taken in response to conduct which the Government considers to be a breach of international law.
Amendment 17, page 13, line 5, at end insert—
“6A Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the purpose of the decision is to prevent violations of international law including the deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, the imposition of collective punishment on civilian populations, forced transfer of civilians, and other acts which may constitute war crimes.”
Amendment 22, page 13, line 5, at end insert—
“(2) Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in breaching international law, where that breach of international law is directly related to the decision.”
Amendment 8, page 15, line 22, at end insert “, environmental protection, environmental targets, environmental treaties or environmental law (as defined by the Environment Act 2021).”
This amendment would expand the environmental grounds on which a public body is allowed to make certain economic decisions.
Amendment 9, page 15, line 26, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) reduces the level of environmental protection, including in a country or territory other than the United Kingdom, or
(b) caused, or had the potential to cause, harm to the natural environment, including the life and health of—
(i) plants, wild animals and other living organisms,
(ii) their habitats, or
(iii) land (except buildings or other structures), air and water,
and the natural systems, cycles and processes through which they interact.”
This amendment extends the definition of environment misconduct to include damage regardless of whether it is legal or illegal, and to include species, habitats and the natural world.
Amendment 10, page 15, line 29, at end insert “and the welfare of animals”
This amendment would add conduct causing, or having the potential to cause, significant harm to the welfare of animals to the types of conduct which constitute environmental misconduct and to which regard may therefore be had without contravening section 1.
Amendment 11, page 15, line 29, at end insert—
“(4) The conduct referenced in sub-paragraph (3) includes conduct which amounts to—
(a) an offence under section 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 or 13 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and
(b) an infringement or contravention of any of the requirements or prohibitions in Schedule 1 of the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015.”
This amendment would clarify the meaning of “welfare of animals” for the purpose of Amendment 10.
Amendment 15, page 15, line 29, at end insert—
“11 Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as it relates to the use of fossil fuels.”
This amendment would allow for a public body to consider the use of fossil fuels when taking certain economic decisions.
Amendment 23, page 15, line 29, at end insert—
“11 Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in the crime of genocide as determined under international law, where that crime of genocide is directly related to the decision.”
Amendment 24, page 15, line 29, at end insert—
“11 Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in the crime of ethnic cleansing as determined under international law, where that ethnic cleansing is directly related to the decision.”
Amendment 25, page 15, line 29, at end insert—
“11 Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in the crime of apartheid as determined under international law, where that crime of apartheid is directly related to the decision.”
I call Anum Qaisar.
Chris Stephens
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I forgive you for that after your excellent address to the all-party parliamentary group on Cyprus last night; it was an excellent event.
I rise to speak to the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar). I indicate now that I will be looking to divide the House on amendment 28, to which I will confine most of my remarks. However, many in this House are deeply disappointed at what the Government are doing in proceeding with this Bill. As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) said on Monday,
“now is not the time.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 611.]
Let me say at the outset that we all condemn the killing of innocent civilians. We do condemn Hamas and their acts of terror on 7 October, and Hamas must release all hostages. We must equally recognise that there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and it is legitimate to question the actions of the Israeli Government. It is perfectly legitimate to call for a ceasefire to address that crisis and let humanitarian aid flow in to save the lives of innocent Palestinian people.
There are vastly more people around these islands who are perplexed by the Government’s playing party political games when the middle east is in crisis and the rest of the world fears the start of an even broader conflict. This is not the time to seek electoral advantage through tripping up political opponents during semantic exchanges, exploiting small differences in language to pretend there is a vast gulf between positions, or selling that to the electorate as “one party good, all other parties bad.”
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on the way he is making his comments. Does he agree that it is positively dangerous to do what this Government are doing when we see the huge rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia? Just now, our communities need us in Parliament to be showing a lead and to be united on this, and not to do something that is so divisive and so deliberately provocative and deeply damaging to the unity of our communities.
Chris Stephens
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I hope that those on the Government Benches listened to her. Many of us have that real fear. This is not the occasion to push forward this legislation. Polarisation is a game that has long been played by the Government, but this is not a game; this is real life, or the loss of it, and such cynicism has no place here. In Israel and Palestine, we have two peoples who feel that they are under existential threat from the other. Almost everyone understands that, and we have all been trying to find solutions that will bring peace to that region. Ringfencing the interests of one group by diminishing the rights of the other can never yield a long-term solution to the entrenched problems in the middle east; it simply exacerbates the tension between the two. The very real fear, which the hon. Member has just expressed, is that it forces people into one camp or the other, it feeds hatred and it fuels the evil that is antisemitism.
It is not too late to withdraw the Bill. If the Government are determined to proceed with it, I hope they listen to the advice from both sides of the House, in particular from Government Back Benchers, and amend the clauses that will otherwise further inflame the divisions that the Government claim they are trying to heal. As with most conflicts, verbal and military, there tends to be collateral damage that has either not been fully anticipated or where the perpetrator simply does not care about the consequences. In their assumed aim of defending the rights of Israel, the Government are attacking the rights of many sectors of our own society, ranging from the legislative and judicial rights of the devolved Parliaments to the democratic rights of elected local authorities, and cutting a swathe through the individual human rights of all people across these islands.
In its long title, the Bill is described as:
“A Bill to make provision to prevent public bodies from being influenced by political or moral disapproval of foreign states when taking certain economic decisions”.
It would appear that public bodies are not fit to make political or moral judgments and, as we will see later, individuals are not fit to make such judgments either. As I said in an earlier debate, the electorate will not miss the irony of a Tory Government presenting themselves as the sole moral arbiter for the whole of these islands.
The pretext for introducing this legislation was an assumed need to respond robustly to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement—or BDS—which advocates a complete boycott of Israel and Israeli people and which suggests that the state of Israel does not even have the right to exist. The Government ignore the fact that, in line with other Governments in Europe and the EU itself, the Scottish Government and the SNP unequivocally condemn and distance themselves from members or affiliates within the BDS movement. Rather than wish the state of Israel to cease to exist, most democratic countries are strong supporters of a two-state solution, with the Government reasserting that position to the House earlier this year, and President Biden reaffirming support only last week. We as a House are generally united in supporting a two-state solution, and to imply otherwise is a red herring and a dangerous distraction to mature debate.
More than 40 Israeli non-governmental organisations have called for this Bill to be rejected, as has the Union of Jewish Students and Yachad, with the latter saying that
“we are unequivocal about the need to protect the right to express differences of opinions, even if they are opinions that we fiercely disagree with”.
Let us listen to them. On the broader issue of human rights at home, let us listen to some other organisations. Amnesty International asserts that the Bill
“would make it almost impossible for public bodies to use their procurement and investment policies to incentivise ethical business conduct that is human rights compliant.”
But we knew that already. Amnesty goes on to say:
“Companies depending on public contracts will feel more confident that their global impacts on human rights and the environment will be irrelevant to their success in tendering processes.”
I see this Bill as a clear incitement to such companies to lessen their commitments to human rights and the environment, as they will no longer need them to gain public contracts. Companies that respect human rights face being undercut by those that knowingly breach international standards with little fear of consequences. What a horrible race to the bottom.
There is a niggling problem here for the Government regarding human rights. There is a global consensus on the human rights standards applicable to companies. The United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights were unanimously endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council, the European Union, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Standards Organisation. The UK was the first country to develop a national action plan to implement those guiding principles, and now we appear to be the first country to renege on those commitments.
The UK is in danger of being a rogue state in this field, going against the tide of international opinion, which considers that public bodies should use procurement and investment policies to incentivise business to be ethical and human rights compliant. I would argue that is in the public interest. Let us consider an example from Amnesty, whereby an NHS body might choose to avoid sourcing medical equipment from certain suppliers, such as Malaysia, Thailand, Pakistan or Mexico, saying that they had been implicated in modern slavery. Those overseas supply companies could take legal action under this legislation on the grounds that the decision makers were influenced by
“political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct”,
and the courts would then have to determine whether the exemption in the Bill for labour-related misconduct applied in that particular case.
Let us imagine that a public body in Scotland decided to stop sourcing beef from a Brazilian meat distribution company whose products had been linked to deforestation of the Amazon. If the proposed law had been in place during the previous Brazil presidency, when exploitation of the Amazon was being actively encouraged, the Brazilian Government or the company whose products were being excluded could have challenged the decision in the High Court on the grounds that it was influenced by
“political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct”.
Since it is unclear whether the environmental misconduct exemption referred to in part 2 of the schedule to the Bill would prevail, the risk attached would have been likely to deter any public body from taking such a decision on environmental grounds. They would have been compelled to be complicit in deforestation.
Liberty and other groups have pointed out that the Bill gives the enforcement authority the power to issue a notice to a public authority requesting an assessment of whether there has, or may be, a breach of the ban or the prohibition on making statements. The Bill gives the enforcement authority the power to impose a compliance notice where they consider a person is likely to contravene the ban—not “has contravened”, but “is likely to contravene”. We are in the realms of Orwell’s thought police or Philip K. Dick’s “The Minority Report”, with precogs catching criminals before they have even committed the crime. The normal police come for someone if they commit a criminal act, but the thought police are different; they act if someone intends to act in some particular way.
Under the Bill, the authorities do not need to demonstrate any proof of intent to publish a particular kind of statement. That is impossible to do in the normal world, so let us just rely on telepathy for finding out someone’s intent. Clause 4 of the Bill would prohibit public bodies and their leaders—such as university vice-chancellors, local council leaders, or even the chief executive of a private company delivering public services—from publishing public statements indicating that they intend to act in a way that would contravene the ban, or that they would, in theory, intend to act that way if not for the ban. A local council could no longer publish statements such as, “Our local council would have boycotted these goods from this state-owned enterprise due to the state’s conduct in relation to this territory, but the law does not permit this, and we intend to comply with the law.” I never expected to say these words, as someone who subscribes to socialist theory, but: we must remove clause 4. I say that just on this occasion. I notice that an amendment to that effect has been tabled.
Liberty has also pointed out that in other jurisdictions, anti-boycott laws have had a severe impact on freedom of expression. In one case in the US, a speech pathologist in Texas lost her school contract because she declined to sign an agreement promising not to boycott Israel on the basis of a similar anti-boycott law. In another, a dermatologist was withheld payment for a lecture for failing to agree not to boycott Israel. US campaigners have further warned that anti-boycott legislation, once enacted, is liable to be extended to a plethora of issues—from fossil fuels to gun control. I fear we are looking at another damaging cultural import from the United States of America.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I have heard the Secretary of State say several times that the Conservatives are in favour of devolution, so should they not be required to seek consent from the Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland before they proceed?
Chris Stephens
My hon. Friend is correct that they should. I suspect they will not receive it from either the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Senedd, for many reasons. As he says, there is clearly an impact on devolution.
Devolution was approved overwhelmingly by the people of Scotland, and any erosion of it is strongly opposed by most, but not all, parties in that Parliament. I will let Members guess which party is least protective of Scotland’s interests. Scotland’s current legislative powers are guarded jealously, and there is strong demand for many—possibly all—reserved powers to be transferred to Scottish control. That is not surprising.
I and others will continue to explore the Bill’s deficiencies again today, pointing out its many contradictions.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his excellent speech. He has given very good democratic, social and moral reasons for why the Bill is in deep defect. Does he not think a better process would be for the Secretary of State now to withdraw the Bill altogether?
Chris Stephens
That would be very helpful indeed. The right hon. Gentleman is right. Those of us who have tabled amendments are trying to clean up a dog’s breakfast, which is very difficult. We are all trying to make the Bill a little better but, as my good friend says, the ultimate solution would be to withdraw it entirely.
I have highlighted the Bill’s contradictions, counter-productiveness and profound consequences, and I will be seeking to divide the House on amendment 28. I look forward to hearing other Members pursue their amendments.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I would like to speak against all the amendments and new clauses before us today and in support of the Bill as currently drafted.
We need this Bill. I thank the Government for including it in the Conservative manifesto and taking it forward, and I urge the whole House to back the Bill and reject the amendments. This, of all times, is a time to stand with the Jewish community, following the worst attack on Jewish people since the holocaust.
BDS has been identified in a succession of studies as driving a rise in antisemitism. By singling out the world’s only Jewish state for criticism, above and beyond that directed at any other country in similar circumstances, I believe BDS campaigns fall within the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. The French supreme court has ruled that BDS is discriminatory, and the German Parliament views the movement as antisemitic.
Since the shocking Hamas terror attacks, we have witnessed deeply disturbing scenes on our TV screens and in our streets. These include sickening so-called celebrations of the horrific murders in southern Israel, and the anti-Jewish racism and hatred visible at successive protests on the streets of our capital city. At a time like this, when Jewish people are in fear for their friends and relatives in Israel, it is appalling to compound their anxiety and distress with hate-filled banners and chants at such protests. I find it deeply depressing that “Jihad! Jihad!” has been shouted with impunity on the streets of our city, and that ISIS flags have been on blatant display.
The dramatic rise in antisemitic incidents is wholly unacceptable, and it shows us that we need campaigns to bring communities together, not drive them apart. There can be no doubt that BDS is absolutely focused on division, not unity. The BDS movement deplores co-existence and peacebuilding initiatives. For example, it has condemned co-operation between Israeli and Palestinian universities. The movement’s founder, Omar Barghouti, has repeatedly expressed his opposition to Israel’s right to exist.
As we go into the voting Lobbies this evening, we are in a situation where the question to be asked of all of us is: “Which side are you on?”. I make it clear that I strongly support the right of Israel to defend its land and its citizens from terrorist attack.
Of course, we all worry about the plight of innocent Gazans put in harm’s way by Hamas, who brutalise them and deliberately use them as human shields. Of course, we need to get supplies to civilians, so long as there is confidence that they cannot be diverted or misused by terrorists. We must always remember that it is Hamas who have endangered the people of Gaza. Hamas are the people who have caused the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
I am in no doubt that the Israeli Defence Forces are making, and will continue to make, the greatest efforts possible to prevent civilian loss of life. Israel is one of the most democratic countries in the world, and it respects the rule of law. I am certain that its democratic and legal institutions will hold its armed forces rigorously to account. Those on the Labour Benches who line up to casually, and wrongly, accuse Israel of war crimes should check their facts, not rush to judgment.
We need our local authorities to concentrate on delivering services, not on conducting their own trade and foreign policy. We need campaigns that promote peaceful progress towards a two-state solution, not bitterness and exclusion. We need to take all possible action against the antisemitism that we have seen increase so shockingly in recent days. We need this Bill.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
Following the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), let me say this:
“When things are so delicate, we all have a responsibility to take additional care in the language we use, and to operate on the basis of facts alone.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 592.]
Those are the words of the Prime Minister in his statement to the House on Monday. He also said that
“this is not a time for hyperbole and simplistic solutions.”
He was absolutely right about the importance of tone in today’s debate, as we discuss the 7 October attack and events in the middle east. What we say and how we behave in this Chamber really matters, because it echoes out across the country. It goes without saying that the disgusting rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia since the attack on 7 October only makes that point more profound.
I fear that the Prime Minister’s powerful statement at the Dispatch Box earlier this week has been undermined by how he and his Ministers have brought this Bill before us today, at the last minute and with the least possible notice. The tension and disagreement surrounding the issues are well known to the Secretary of State yet, in the middle of a humanitarian emergency in the middle east, he has chosen this week of all weeks to force this legislation on to the parliamentary timetable—a Bill that fails the Prime Minister’s own test of avoiding simplistic solutions.
There can be no doubt that Labour is opposed to a policy of adopting boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel, as it wrongly singles out one individual nation and is counterproductive to the prospect of peace. We know this is a serious issue.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The right hon. Lady says with some force at the Dispatch Box that Labour is clearly opposed to singling out Israel through BDS measures, yet where Labour is in government in the UK—Wales—the Welsh Labour Government sought to bring forward a procurement note that singled out Israel and the Palestinian territories. Can she explain what her position was when her colleagues in Wales sought to do that?
Angela Rayner
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. We are hoping to get consensus around what we are trying to do. I stand by my statement, but we do not want one nation to be singled out in this boycott. We do not agree with boycott tactics, which is why we were concerned enough to table our amendment to the Procurement Bill back in February, when I shadowed the Cabinet Office, which would have prevented councils from singling out Israel or any other country. The Government have consistently opposed that amendment.
Today, we are presented with a Bill that will not address the problem it rightly seeks to solve. As it stands, the Bill has needlessly broad and sweeping draconian powers and far-reaching effects. It is poorly drafted legislation that risks creating fresh legal disputes, and will only serve as new flashpoints for community tension. We remain far from convinced that protracted legal battles over the BDS would serve or protect Jewish communities in the UK. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) clearly spelled out those issues on Second Reading, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) and for Caerphilly (Wayne David) in Committee. Today is the fourth time that we have presented the Government with a chance to change course and choose a more constructive way forward, yet the Bill has been brought back nearly totally unamended—the only change is to the explanatory notes. It is all too clear that the Secretary of State has not listened.
However, there is a way forward. In our view, it is not wrong for public bodies to take ethical investment and procurement decisions. There is a difference between applying consistent ethical principles in legitimate criticism of foreign Governments and what, in recent years, some individuals and organisations have tried to do: seek to target Israel alone; hold it to different standards from other countries; question its right to exist; and equate the actions of the Israeli Government to Jewish people and in doing so, create hate and hostility against Jewish people here in the UK. That is completely wrong.
Amendment 13, on which we will seek a vote today, addresses that problem. It would allow public bodies to produce a document setting out their policy on procurement and human rights. The policy would be cemented in a framework, based on principles that apply equally to all countries, rather than singling out individual nations. Such a statement of ethical policy would ensure consistency in how public bodies decide on these matters, and would be subject to guidance issued by elected Ministers and laid before this House. Any inconsistent application would be prohibited. Under Labour’s proposals, if a public body were to act only against a particular state—for instance, the world’s only Jewish state—and failed to comply a consistent approach to human rights everywhere, such actions would be unlawful. We were disappointed that the Government chose not to support our amendment at previous stages, but I repeat today our offer to the Government—indeed, the whole House—to work together and speak with one voice on this most serious of issues, by accepting the amendment.
Moving on, there are four more concerning areas in the Bill that I wish to raise briefly with the Secretary of State. First, we have serious reservations about how the Bill effectively rewrites UK foreign policy by explicitly equating Israel with the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights. That is an unprecedented step that, to my knowledge, has never been taken in British statute and is unique in British legislation.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
As my right hon. Friend knows, I am a former local authority leader in Trafford. I am incredibly proud that, when I was the leader of Trafford Council, my Labour administration took steps to cease procurement linked to the Xinjiang region because of the oppression and suppression of Uyghur Muslims. Am I correct to interpret the Bill as seeming to suggest that my Labour administration and I were incorrect to do that, and that others up and down the country who speak up for human rights and against that sort behaviour are in the wrong?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which is why we are trying to gain consensus across the House through our amendments. It is important that people should be able to raise concerns appropriately and in the best way. The Bill does not allow that. Even the Foreign Secretary’s office warned No. 10 about the impact of the Bill on our foreign commitments. For that reason, we welcome amendment 7 in the name of the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), which has support across the House—including from Members from the Liberal Democrat and SNP Benches. We think it will go some way to addressing the problem.
Thirdly, I want to re-emphasise the concerns raised by Members from all major parties about clause 4—the so-called gagging clause. I acknowledge the changes made to the explanatory notes in this area, but this unprecedented restriction could have far-reaching consequences for our democracy, and I urge the Secretary of State to think again. I have tabled amendment 16, which would address the issue of elected bodies. It is a mark of the concern across the House that there are so many amendments to the clause, including from Members from the Government and the SNP Benches. The seriousness of the clause must not be underestimated. It is an unprecedented restriction on the ability of the public bodies—many of them directly elected—to express a view on policy, effectively gagging them from even talking about it.
We are concerned that clause 4 would be incompatible with article 10 of the European convention on human rights, which protects freedom of expression. Labour’s amendment 14 seeks to remove the most sweeping provisions in the Bill through which the Secretary of State intends to hand himself unprecedented power to change the scope and application of the Bill through regulations.
Lastly, it is important to note that the Bill in its current form will not set out what it seeks to achieve. There are loopholes that will allow discriminatory acts to continue unchallenged. Our new clause 3 presents just one example, and I am sure that there are many more. The new clause requires the Government to review the impact of the Bill on discrimination, and addresses one form of it that has been raised with me—refusal to provide kosher food. We on the Labour Benches know that that impacts on many British Jews across this country, causing much distress and suffering. That is the type of concerning practice that should be tackled, but the Bill in its current form will not address it. I urge the Secretary of State to take a pause, take a step back, and consider that there might be another way through.
I assure the Secretary of State that Labour feels strongly that BDS practices against Israel offer no meaningful route to peace for the people of either Palestine or of Israel. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan said on Second Reading,
“We on the Labour Benches do not claim that all those who support BDS, despite our profound disagreement with them on that issue, are antisemitic.”—[Official Report, 3 July 2023; Vol. 735, c. 527.]
But let us be clear: the effect of BDS would be the total economic, social and cultural isolation of the world’s only Jewish state, and there are those who use the campaign to whip up hostility towards Jewish people, providing no route to peace and a two-state solution. I can assure the Secretary of State that Labour will continue to condemn and oppose that in the strongest terms. I do not believe there is genuine disagreement between us on that point.
But let me be totally clear, too, both as a shadow Minister and as deputy leader of the Labour party: now more than ever we expect councils to bring all their communities together and represent all their citizens. It would be utterly wrong to choose one community over another—or worse, pit one against another.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I agree 100% with the right hon. Lady that we must be moderate in our tone and the language we use. Does she agree it was therefore very unhelpful for the Scottish Labour leader to use terms accusing Israel of breaching international law when we are discussing such a sensitive subject?
Angela Rayner
As I said at the start of the debate, people have to be responsible—and, in fairness, I acknowledged that the Prime Minister at the start of this week also outlined that people have to be responsible. I say that across the whole House and genuinely mean it: we all have to be responsible. I know people feel very strongly at the moment about these issues, and rightly so, and I hope the hon. Gentleman sees from my contribution to this debate that I am taking that very seriously as well.
We rightly expect that our local government must surely stay by the principles I mentioned, but we must also make sure that our national Government do too. That is real leadership—of our communities, and of our whole country. Instead, I fear we have a Government unwilling to recognise what is needed from them at this moment on this Bill: careful, precise deliberation and to bring communities and the country with us.
I am disappointed that the Secretary of State has taken the reckless path of forcing the Bill back to Parliament today—a Bill that fails on its own terms. His approach risks dividing our country, our communities and even his party. I urge him now not to divide the House and to accept the amendments proposed by Members on the Opposition side and his own.
For our part, Labour stands ready—as we have at every single stage of the Bill—to work constructively with the Government and other parties to build consensus behind a workable, sensible solution. There is no doubt that the people of our country want us to speak with one voice. Labour stands ready and willing to work in good faith to achieve that goal. The question is, are the Government?
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
The Prime Minister was absolutely right earlier this week to say that the tone we adopt is incredibly important given the gravity of the events we are seeing in the middle east at the moment. Every single Member of this House is obviously absolutely horrified by the tragedy that is unfolding and the barbaric atrocities committed by Hamas. In my case, I absolutely support the right of Israel to self-defence, but it is possible to believe all these things—to be a friend of Israel, too—but nevertheless to be reluctant to pass bad legislation through this House unamended when we have the opportunity to make amendments on Report. It is possible, too, to believe strongly that freedom of contract and freedom of speech are important pillars in our liberal democracy, and that although we might sometimes fetter those key pillars of freedom and our liberal democracy, we should not do so lightly.
For that reason, I would support amendments 7 and 3 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), because putting the occupied territories and Israel into the Bill is unusual for a Bill of this sort. We must ask this question: if the purpose is to make it difficult for a future Government to take a position that would change the approach to our close allies, why is the United States not also listed? Many of the groups that people object to, such as BDS, are often quite anti-American as well, so why do we not have a fuller list of countries to make it difficult for them to add?
More importantly, this sends an unfortunate signal around British foreign policy. It has been the long-standing position of all British Governments that we support a two-state solution and that the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are illegal. That is a consistent British Government position over a long period of time, and we must be careful not to send signals that that has changed.
More importantly, I would also support amendment 3, because clause 4 is a strong violation of freedom of speech. It has come to something when we are saying that not only would people not be free to follow the procurement policy they want, but they would not even be allowed to say that the reason why they were not free to do so was this Bill. I will support amendments 7 or 3 if either go to a vote this evening.
However, I want to focus principally on the two amendments in my name—amendments 10 and 11. Although much of the debate around the Bill is understandably conducted through the context of BDS and of Israel and the Palestinian situation, the scope of clause 1 is very broad. What is before us this evening is a broad procurement Bill that places quite broad restrictions on procurements and applies to every country in the world. I presume the reason is that the Government’s legal advice was that to have something that focused just on one country, Israel, or on just one campaign group, BDS, would create some legal issues. So they then had to construct a Bill that affects every organisation, every issue and every country, and then through the schedule try to piece back some of the liberties affected by the imposition of clause 1.
I want to focus on that schedule, because it lists lots of different issues that are outside the scope of clause 1, and rightly so, including “environmental misconduct”, but there is no mention of animal welfare. There will be times when public bodies will take a procurement decision based on animal welfare. They need to be free to do that, and it is not at all clear from the schedule that that could be done. Paragraph 10 mentions “environmental misconduct” and at the end talks about
“the life and health of plants and animals”,
but it does so very much in the context of the environment and the wild environment rather than through the context of kept animals.
The Government buying standards were recently revised to encourage all public bodies and all Government Departments to take account of animal welfare in their procurement policies, but the Bill would appear to curtail the right of local authorities to do just that. Legitimate issues will come into play here. These are probing amendments on which I am looking for reassurance from the Minister and an undertaking to consider these matters further in the other place. For instance, were a local authority to judge that it would prefer to procure lamb from New Zealand over, say, Australia, because New Zealand has high animal welfare standards while the Australian sheep industry has poor levels of animal welfare and does not have in place the right regulatory powers to deal with certain practices, that would be a legitimate consideration. Indeed, it is not only legitimate but a consideration that the Government’s own buying standards and the Crown Commercial Service encourage all public bodies to pursue.
In closing, my question, which is very much linked to my two amendments, is this: is the Minister’s understanding that it would be entirely in order under the Bill for any local authority or public body to make decisions based on animal welfare, and that any such decision related to animal welfare would be totally outside the scope of clause 1?
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
This was a dreadful piece of legislation when we debated it on Second Reading, and it returns to us on Report in an equally dreadful state. In July, on Second Reading, I said that the Bill was being introduced at the wrong time, given the violence and unrest taking place in the region. Never in my worst nightmares did I think that we would experience the brutal, inhumane and indiscriminate massacre that was unleashed on innocent Israeli civilians on 7 October, and the subsequent humanitarian catastrophe that we are now witnessing in Gaza. To bring this wrong-headed, poorly drafted and politically motivated Bill back to the House in the midst of these horrors—horrors that we are seeing every hour of the day and every hour of the night, on our television screens and on social media—is an act of complete irresponsibility and unbelievable foolishness.
I speak as a proud Jew; I speak as a strong supporter of Israel, a committed Zionist; and I speak as someone who opposes the BDS movement and believes that its intent is to try to destroy the state of Israel. But I do not speak on my own; I know that I speak in the name of thousands of Jews in Britain, who are not always represented in this House—particularly by some Jewish Members in the House—and for millions of Jews in Israel. I simply ask the Minister—and the Secretary of State, who is now in his place—to please withdraw this nasty Bill and come back in the autumn with a properly considered proposal that can be accepted by us all.
This is an emotional time to us all—it is for me—but I urge Ministers: we should all be working together at this time. Every MP in this House should be working to calm things down in the middle east, to contain conflict, to secure the release of hostages and to stop the humanitarian catastrophe we are seeing in Gaza. We should not be seeking to divide Members now.
I put it to Ministers that the Bill contains proposals that will only heighten tensions between communities. Work by the Community Security Trust shows us that there has been a 651% increase in antisemitic attacks from 7 to 20 October. My own family and my own grandchildren have been subject to such attacks, and I know what difficulty this brings to many, many families in this country. The Bill will only deepen the hostilities. It will not help our communities; it will only strengthen the polarisation that is already so evident. We see it in our schools, in our universities and in our workplaces.
The Bill will not help Israel as it seeks to defend itself against an existential threat. It will simply become just one more thing to enrage those people who oppose the state of Israel. It will not help Jews at all as we struggle to come to terms with the pogrom that took place in the kibbutzim and the music festival some two weeks ago. It will not help us as we all struggle to find a route to peace that allows Israel to defend itself without inflicting intolerable hardship on Palestinians, who have also become the victims of Hamas’s terrorist activity. I plead with the Government to withdraw this legislation and to help us to work together.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I appreciate the remarks that the right hon. Lady is making—she speaks with some authority because of her background—but I fail to see the logic of her point that a Bill that prevents local authorities deliberately highlighting their opposition to the existence of the state of Israel, and boycotting goods from it, is likely to lead to bad community relations. Surely stopping local authorities acting in such a partisan way will help to establish better community relations.
Dame Margaret Hodge
I beg to differ with what the right hon. Gentleman says, because the Bill in itself is so contentious that it will not actually stop activity, but encourage those who want to argue against the state of Israel and want to argue against what is currently happening in the Israeli-Palestinian war. It will give them added strength, so I simply disagree with him. At a time like this, the worst thing we can do is introduce contentious legislation.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I respect the right hon. Lady for her views, but just on that last point, the idea that we should not do something because the people who hate Israel will be even angrier about it does not seem to me to be a very credible argument. These people were out in front of the embassy in the immediate aftermath of the attacks demanding boycotts of Israel, before Israel even had time to respond. Is it really a credible argument that we should not do this because it might make the people who hate Israel even angrier?
Dame Margaret Hodge
I hope that as I develop my argument the hon. Member will listen, because it is the flaws in the Bill that I think actually damage its intention, which is to limit and deal with the evils of the BDS movement. I said a little earlier that I oppose the BDS movement. I recognise that the BDS movement probably has the intention of trying to destroy the state of Israel. I want to tackle that, but I think that doing so in the way that is proposed in this legislation will simply damage that intent, not meet it. I think maybe that is where he and I differ.
The Bill is flawed in so many ways. The main reason is that it is not designed to tackle a problem; it is designed to score a crude party political point, as I said on Second Reading. I am afraid that the Secretary of State himself gave the game away on that occasion, when he said:
“The question for every Member of this House is whether they stand with us against antisemitism or not.”—[Official Report, 3 July 2023; Vol. 735, c. 591.]
I respectfully say to him that that is not the question, but it does lay bare the truth about the Bill. The Government believe that they have set a trap for the Opposition: if we speak against the Bill, they will try to paint us as antisemites. But I say to the Government that if they pass the Bill in its current form, it is they who will be encouraging antisemitism by fuelling hatred. They will be encouraging antisemitism by specifying on the face of the Bill only one country where the boycott of goods would be illegal, simply confirming in people’s minds that Israel and the Israel-Palestine conflict is a special case, different from all the other cases around. That is a constant problem, a constant issue that is raised with me by people who are worried and concerned—over time, not particularly in relation to the war as it stands—about attitudes in the UK to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Everybody says, “Why pick on Israel?”
So why do the Government now select Israel? It is they who are encouraging antisemitism by gagging free speech in our universities and council chambers. It is they who are encouraging antisemitism by trampling on the democratic rights of local politicians. It is an incredible arrogance for us as MPs to sit here and think that somehow we are better than, or different from, locally elected councillors who also have political views and who also carry out important democratic jobs in their councils.
It is the Government who are encouraging antisemitism by ignoring our obligations under the UN Security Council. It is they who are encouraging antisemitism—and I say this on the basis of my experience of fighting the British National party in Barking from 2006 until the general election in 2010—by refusing to engage in an open debate. By closing the debate, they give added credibility to the idea that those who seek to destroy the state of Israel are somehow wronged.
Stephen Crabb
As the right hon. Lady knows, I have a huge amount of respect for her, and she speaks on these issues with an authority with which many of us cannot speak about them. She knows better than anyone that a tide of vile antisemitism has been unleashed in the country. Last week, some of us heard from Jewish students who were afraid to give their surnames because they were afraid of giving away their Jewish identity—afraid to admit that they were Jewish. One said that they felt as if Jews were being pushed out of British universities. If July was not a good time to introduce legislation to draw a line in the sand, and if now is an even worse time, when is a good time to make a stand on behalf of Jewish people who are at risk at this time?
Dame Margaret Hodge
Let me start by saying that the growth of antisemitism on the streets and in our communities is absolutely terrible. It is affecting some of the youngest people in my own family, and it is dreadful to observe the impact that it has on young children. So I am completely with the right hon. Gentleman on that. My point is that the legislation is so flawed that it does not meet its intent. I would love to work with Ministers, and with Members across the House, to produce a piece of legislation that would tackle the issue that we know exists in relation to BDS, but would do so in a way that was not contentious. It does not have to be like this; we could do it in another way, and doing that as soon possible would be a really good thing to do.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Surely this is the point that my right hon. Friend is making. Surely the answer to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) is that a good time would be a time when those of good will had had a sufficient opportunity to engage in the necessary discussions to find a consensus that would lead to an acceptable and sensible piece of legislation.
Dame Margaret Hodge
My hon. Friend makes a very valid point, and I am grateful to him for his intervention.
I do feel really emotional about today. It is, I think, an emotional day for many of us in the Chamber. Let me just say this to the Secretary of State. He is trying to put forward legislation in the name of the Jewish community, but he is not doing so in my name, or in the name of literally thousands of people I talk to here in the UK who are all good Jews, proud of their Jewish identity. I also know from my conversations with family, friends and colleagues in Israel that there are many there who also think that this is a poor piece of legislation. I plead with the Secretary of State please, please to withdraw the Bill, which I think would be more damaging than helpful, and to engage in the sort of debate that has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), which could bring us to a mutually agreed conclusion, reaching the objective that we all want.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. May I provide a little guidance? If Members speak for a maximum of about eight minutes, we will be able to get everyone in.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I support this excellent Bill and wish to speak against all the amendments. I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for taking the Bill through the House. I support it for three principal reasons: first, it is genuinely needed; secondly, boycotts are inherently discriminatory and contrary to public policy, especially when engaged in by third-tier local authorities; and thirdly, the BDS movement internationally is inextricably linked to antisemitism. I will explore those three points briefly.
Perhaps I can give the House just two examples of why the Bill is needed. The first is the example of the now bankrupt Birmingham City Council, which threatened in 2014 not to renew a contract with the French multinational company Veolia due to its operations in the west bank. In 2015, Veolia withdrew from the Israeli market as a consequence and the BDS movement claimed that decision as a victory. Of course, that hurt Palestinians as well as everyone else. Another example, shamefully, is that of the supermarket Sainsbury’s. In at least one of its branches, it was put under so much pressure that it removed kosher food products from its shelves following virulent anti-Israel protests. So this is about protecting communities and avoiding antisemitism succeeding. The Bill will prevent divisive behaviour that undermines community cohesion across the country. I am afraid to say that BDS activity has legitimised and driven antisemitism in the United Kingdom, as it exclusively targets Israel.
Sir Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
I 100% endorse and agree with everything that my right hon. and learned Friend has been outlining, and the argument he is making is very powerful. Does he agree that, right now, there is obviously a hugely important moral and ethical purpose to being clear about our opposition to antisemitism in any form, at any time and from any organisation, let alone the abhorrence of what BDS stands for, in the light of the terrorist atrocity that we have seen? This Bill predates the atrocity that we saw earlier this month and, returning to his core point, its original purpose is the correct one, which is to remind us that central Government’s role is to deal with foreign policy and to ensure that local councils are making decisions that are based not on their foreign policy or any other ideological pressure or views but on the best value for local residents.
Sir Michael Ellis
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, who makes his point eloquently.
Israel clearly has a vibrant economy and welcomes everyone. I challenge those both outside this House and in other countries who support the BDS movement to bear in mind that I suspect that they would not be able to function in today’s modern society if they were to personally boycott companies that are already deeply engaged in Israel and do business there. I will give some examples: Apple, Google, Intel, Microsoft, 3M, Alibaba, Amazon, Fujitsu, AOL, Siemens, Bosch, Sony, Texas Instruments, Samsung, Nestlé, Coca-Cola, Western Digital, Xerox, Mitsubishi, Pfizer, Salesforce, Visa, Mastercard, Honda, Ford. I have lists of dozens of companies that do business in the state of Israel. Let us bear in mind that those persons who seek to boycott Israel do so with an air of double standards. That is the very least that can be said about it. I support this Bill and reject all of the proposed amendments.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge)? If we descend into accusations that those who do not support the Bill are antisemites, or that those who support it are Islamophobic, I think we are lost, to be honest. It is important that we are careful about our language.
There is a profound misunderstanding about what we are debating. If this is about the BDS movement itself, there are mechanisms that the Government can use to proscribe an organisation. But the debate on this Bill should be about BDS as a method, a tactic. I have supported boycotting, disinvesting and sanctioning a whole range of regimes. I campaigned with and supported the anti-apartheid movement of BDS with regard to South Africa. Actually, a large number of Members on both sides of the House supported that. I also did so with regard to Saudi Arabia and its execution—tragically, it is still doing this—of members of the gay community. I have campaigned with others across the House with regard to Sri Lanka and the persecution of the Tamils, including the murder of a number of my constituents when they visited their families. I am doing the same at the moment with regard to Bahrain because of its imprisonment of the political opposition. It is the same with Russia. I was a founder member 10 years ago of the Ukraine Solidarity Campaign and we have been calling for sanctions against Russia for years—in advance of even the Government, to be honest. It is the same with Iran. I chair the Iranian workers’ movement committee, which supports trade unionists campaigning in Iran, many of whom are unfortunately in prison. There is also the Uyghurs.
On all of those, I have urged the use of BDS because when other representations and diplomacy fail, there are not many options left. One of the options, unfortunately, is the use of arms. In not promoting that, we have tried to find a middle lane, and that is economic isolation to try to influence. To be frank, it did work in South Africa. That is why we have tried to ensure that it is a mechanism that can be drawn upon. I agree, however, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) on the Front Bench. The important thing is to ensure that if we use this mechanism, it is used properly and fairly and that we do not discriminate against one particular country. That is what I have not done. I have called for BDS with regard to goods coming from the occupied territories and Iran because they are against the international order.
Having sat in this House for 25 years and listened to speeches from Conservative representatives, I have learned a bit about conservatism, so what I find extraordinary is that this Bill is profoundly unconservative. Those on the Government Front Bench seem to be rejecting many of the individual amendments in front of us. I have listened to Government Members arguing that the Conservative party stands for freedom of speech, support for the law, the rights of property, the democratic rights of this Parliament, local government and other agencies, devolution of decision-making, and support for the action on the environment and human rights.
Let me turn to the amendments on freedom of speech. Amendments 28 and 3 prevent the Government introducing a gagging order on even just talking about this—having a debate about it. That is profoundly unconservative. I cannot believe that Government Members are not supporting those amendments. On the issue of rights of property, I say to the Conservative Member whose constituency I cannot remember that we are both members of the local government pension fund. The Government are overriding the rights to my property, which is my pension fund. I cannot believe that the Conservatives are doing that. That is my stored wages for over 20 years of service in local government over which I now lose control, and the amendment simply says that the members of that pension fund will be allowed to decide.
Jeremy Corbyn
My right hon. Friend will recall the days when we managed to persuade the GLC pension fund not to invest in apartheid South Africa, but, as I am sure he will agree, the fundamentals of the Bill are that it actually reduces a very large area of freedom of speech for elected local councillors. That, to me, undermines the whole principle of representative democracy within our society.
John McDonnell
I agree. I was chair of finance at that time. It was interesting because there was an awful lot of cross-party support on that, as we were then at the stage of the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela, and the worst oppressions that were going on, including what happened in Soweto.
Let me go through the amendments themselves. On devolution and local decision-making, all that amendments 5, 16, 34 and new clause 2 do is ensure that local democracy takes place. The arguments that I have heard from those on the Conservative Benches on several occasions is that local councillors should have the right to represent their local communities and, above all else, they should listen to their local communities. When there have been rows on the Government Benches, it is often as a result of councils not having listened to their local communities, and sometimes I have agreed. These amendments simply enable the local community to express their views and for that to be taken into account.
On environmental concerns, amendments 8, 10, 15 and 11 are simply reinforcing many of the policies that the Conservative party has been advocating in our attempts to get to net zero and protect animals at the same time. I have often heard Government Members saying that upholding the law is an essential part of conservatism. Well, that is what amendments 6 and 17 do. They are simply saying that the use of this mechanism can be helpful in upholding international law.
This Bill is a bad Bill. I agree that there might be the potential to gain consensus on it. One way forward is through the amendment that the Labour Front Bench has tabled to try to look at human rights in general to see how statements defining human rights can be made by Government, and that then influencing what happens in other decision-making areas, such as in local government, pension funds and so on. I believe that there is an opportunity for that, but what I come back to is that this is not the time to do something that in any way divides our communities. If the Bill is in any way amendable, let us just pull it. The Government have done that before. There has been a pause on legislation, allowing wiser heads to come together and to come back with something that actually might work.
If there are arguments about the BDS movement, and I totally condemn some of the statements that I have heard from some of the leaders associated with it, that is a separate issue. This is about a method of trying to influence individual countries to behave in line with international law, protect the environment, and so on. It is about trying to set standards in other countries that we want to promote globally anyway.
Andrew Percy
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) put forward a clever argument, but many of us see through it to the real motivation. He himself said that he supports part of the BDS campaign.
The issue of timing is interesting. I am not sure whether we are being asked to wait until Hamas give us permission to bring the Bill back. Should we wait for their decision to end the violence, so that we are then able to bring this forward? People advanced the same arguments that they are advancing today before the massacre, so there will never be a good time to bring the legislation forward if we follow that line.
The right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and I have disagreed on some things, but I respect her very much. She has been very brave in lots of the things that she has done in recent years, but I think that it was beneath her to accuse people who support the legislation of driving antisemitism. That was an unfortunate slip, because it is a fact that the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies support the legislation. She may be right that others in the Jewish community do not, but it is a fact that leadership groups within the community support the legislation.
Why now? For me, it was going down to see one of the marches two weeks ago. I do not want to call them marches for peace, because they were not; they were marches filled with hate. There were people there enjoying what happened in Israel. I saw many of them holding deeply antisemitic signs, many of which called for a boycott of the Israeli state. That said to me that this is a moment when we have to grasp this issue, which has been a poisonous part of political discourse on the middle east for so long. If not now, then when? There will never be a perfect time.
As I said in my intervention, even before the Israeli Government had acted in any way in Gaza in self-defence, BDS campaigners were outside the Israeli embassy, after 1,400 Israelis had been murdered—the worst murder of Jews since the holocaust. What were those campaigners doing? They were not there expressing sympathy for what had just happened; they were demanding that people boycott the state of Israel. This is a pernicious, nasty, antisemitic campaign, and there is no pretending otherwise, as indeed some people who oppose the Bill will agree.
The metrics are clear: BDS activities drive antisemitism. That is a fact, and we are all in agreement on that. On the pretence that there are lots of other countries at which this is aimed, let us be honest: only Israel is the focus of BDS activities. That is where the action in local government and the Welsh Government has been. It has all been about Israel. Let us be honest: for some of the people arguing against the legislation, it will always be about Israel. Whatever has happened, they are always here with words against Israel, holding Israel to different standards. It is the same people; they just find a different argument. It is the same on every issue related to the middle east. They are always here, some of them in this House, and it is always about the behaviour of the state of Israel.
I find it a really bizarre claim that because some people might react unpleasantly, or potentially violently, to us banning a campaign that all of us who have spoken so far—well, maybe not all of us—agree is antisemitic, that might inflame community tensions. What we are saying there, in effect, is that the elected House of Commons of the United Kingdom should not act because some people might not like it and might get violent. A country that follows that line of argument is a country that is lost. We agree that this is antisemitic and it should not matter, therefore, whether some people who might not like our approach might react. They have been reacting fairly unpleasantly already—we have all seen the marches—so I just do not buy that argument.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I have a huge amount of affection for my hon. Friend and understanding of what he is saying. I ask him to give me his view on the following, which relates to my concern. I take everything that he is saying, but at a time when our country can play a pivotal role in trying to de-escalate and find a peaceful solution to the horror unravelling in the middle east, what assessment has he made of the damage that could arise from a claim of partiality being levelled against the Government for bringing this Bill forward at this time?
Andrew Percy
My hon. Friend said he had affection for me. Not many people say that, so I welcome it and I will be framing that part of Hansard. However, I will just push back on the point he makes. How is impartiality impacted by outlawing something that all of us agree is antisemitic? Who sits on the Palestinian BDS National Committee? It is Hamas and Islamic Jihad. So are we saying that we should not ban this antisemitic campaign because some people might not like that. We can push that argument quickly back in the other direction.
I went over my time on the last occasion, so I am going to stay absolutely within my time now, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will end with a powerful quote in The Jewish Chronicle today from its former editor Stephen Pollard. He said:
“You might think that now of all times, when the world has witnessed the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, there would be a clamour, a rush, even a demand for the BDS Bill to be passed. Now of all times, surely, is the time to stand up and say we see where Jew hate leads.”
That is the best argument for this legislation and for why now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for keeping within time, but I am now going to impose a time limit of eight minutes, just to ensure that everybody gets the chance to speak.
Caroline Lucas
The speech we have just listened to from the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) shows exactly why this is not the right time for this Bill and this debate. The speech from the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) that he criticised was a perfectly reasonable one making the case for the tools of boycott, sanctions and divestment. To suggest that those tools are intrinsically antisemitic is clearly and evidentially wrong. The vast generalisations that the hon. Gentleman has deployed again show why this Bill is deeply unhelpful and the timing downright dangerous.
The brutal attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas on 7 October have filled every right-thinking person with horror and underscored the urgent need to stand against violence. We do that, in part, by defending and advocating human rights. These principles need to guide our response to the collective punishment of the civilian population of Gaza, too, and to any other unlawful action being perpetrated by the Israeli or Palestinian authorities, or by Hamas.
I am struggling to understand why, as one of the leading global champions of human rights, the UK would want to send a signal that it thinks that human rights matter only selectively—that would be the impact of the current wording if the Bill passes. It would say to the world that some people’s rights matter less than other people’s. Frankly, the timing seems designed to make political capital from a horrendous situation, and the Government should be ashamed. This is a new low, and it is reckless, provocative and deeply damaging. The Government risk igniting the situation further by bringing back this Bill with the clause singling out Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This legislation, in effect, applies restrictions on the right to freedom of expression and debate, in a way that risks polarising views even further. At any time, let alone in this most sensitive of contexts, enshrining in law such partiality towards the conflict is beyond irresponsible.
I have tabled three amendments to the Bill: two on the ability of public bodies to make decisions about their activities on environmental grounds and one to exclude fossil fuels from the Bill’s provisions. First, on fossil fuels, there is a worrying lack of clarity from the Government about what it may or may not be permissible for public bodies to do should the Bill be enacted. My amendment 15 is intended to clear that up and protect the right of public authorities to divest from fossil fuels.
Earlier this week, Friends of the Earth published evidence that at least £12.2 billion of local government pension funds is invested in fossil fuels. The clarity that I seek to provide with my amendment is needed because fossil fuels are obviously not covered by the environmental misconduct exemption in respect of illegal activities, because obviously extraction currently happens legally. It is needed because decisions to divest could easily be brought into the scope of clause 1 because a fossil fuel company, especially in the case of state oil and gas firms, could easily meet the threshold for association with a foreign Government. Majority state-owned or controlled oil or gas firms such as Saudi Aramco, Equinor, Petrobras and Gazprom, or other companies that are highly associated with a foreign Government, would obviously be considered to be affiliated with certain countries, which would affect decisions about things like pension funds.
The ability of pension schemes in particular to divest from fossil fuels under current legislation and guidance is well established and compatible with fiduciary duty. The consideration of whether to divest often includes the discussion or consideration of individual states as examples of why divestment is desirable. Campaigners will often publicly cite examples of states where fossil fuel extraction is taking place as a reason to divest from fossil fuel assets, even if the divestment sought is much broader. This is reasonable and entirely responsible given the financial risks associated with things such as carbon bubbles and stranded assets, let alone the climate crisis more broadly, and it is currently lawful. But if the legislation is passed, such consideration runs the risk of being judged to have been influenced by the political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct and thus bring divestment decisions within the Bill’s scope. If the Minister does not intend fossil fuel divestment to be covered by the Bill, it must be explicitly excluded, not left to run the kind of risks that I have outlined.
On environmental misconduct, some sorely lacking clarity needs to be injected into the Bill, hence my two amendments. The Bill has an exemption that is limited to environmentally harmful behaviour that
“amounts to an offence, whether under the law of a part of the United Kingdom or any other country or territory”.
Much environmentally destructive activity takes place entirely legally; indeed, that could even be the rationale for a boycott or a divestment campaign. During the passage of the Environment Act 2021, the limitations of due diligence measures that targeted only illegal deforestation were made clear—for example, because a significant proportion of deforestation due to soy or palm oil in Brazil or Indonesia respectively could take place legally, or because it would be incredibly difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal deforestation.
My amendment 8 would expand the environmental grounds on which a public body is allowed to make certain economic decisions beyond activities that are currently simply an offence. Without it, the exemption is unworkable at worst and will undermine good practice at best. Let me explain. Several pension experts who gave evidence in Committee warned that the Bill will impact on environmental, social and governance investment decisions and cut across pension schemes’ fiduciary duty. Those experts included the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers’ Superannuation Committee and the Local Government Association. It is now standard practice to consider ESG factors when looking at investments, and there is widespread concern that the environmental misconduct exemption is so weak that it does not provide the exemptions that Ministers claim it provides. In turn, this is a threat to adherence with things such as the United Nations principles for responsible investment or, indeed, the sustainable development goals. It fails to recognise that investors often consider divergence from best practice, and not simply breaches of law, and it fails to reflect the fact that in countries with, for example, opaque legal systems, the establishment of whether an offence has occurred may not be straightforward.
There is also a risk that a campaign directed at persuading public bodies to boycott or divest on environmental grounds could end up coming within the scope of the legislation. That could happen if, for example, case studies are judged to constitute the criticism or disproval of a foreign state, or if they identify where an environmentally harmful activity such as logging in the Amazon is taking place. The Government are fond of claiming that they have the very best environmental credentials, so why would they want to scupper the potential for public bodies to demand higher environmental standards—for example, in their supply chains or from their pension fund managers—with a poorly worded reference to “environmental misconduct”?
My amendment 8 would tackle that and provide for a proper exemption. My amendment 9 would extend the definition of “environmental misconduct” to include damage, regardless of whether it was legal or illegal, as well as species, habitats and the natural world. It replicates word for word the definition of “natural environment” in the Government’s own Environment Act 2021; as such, I hope that it provides the consistency and clarity that are not currently afforded by the current wording. I would be especially interested to know why Ministers did not use that wording in the first place, given that it is already in the 2021 Act, and why they are not aiming for a consistent definition of “natural environment” across different legislation.
To conclude, my amendments are designed to properly protect the exemptions that Ministers claim are in the Bill, in line with definitions in other legislation.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
I rise to speak in favour of the motion and to support the Bill.
The events on 7 October mean that we are debating the Bill in a different context. We are doing so against the backdrop of the murder of at least 1,400 Jewish people and the kidnapping of hundreds in Israel, as well as a 641% rise in antisemitic incidents in the UK. The Bill is not on its own a solution to antisemitism or the key to solving every problem in the middle east. However, I will explain why it will not only provide much-needed reassurance to the Jewish community here, but benefit both Israelis and Palestinians. I will set out why the BDS movement is harmful internationally and discriminatory towards Jewish communities here in the UK, and why it is vital that Israel is named in the Bill.
I am not Jewish. I grew up in Dudley, where we do not have a Jewish community—I grew up hungry to know more about history and politics—but I when I was young my father worked for an Israeli company, ISCAR. He moved around jobs as a salesman, so I remembered his work by which country the company originated from. For me, Israel was just another one of those places where he had travelled for work. ISCAR was set up by Stef Wertheimer, a German-born Jew who fled the Nazis in 1937. He started a small metal shop and tool-making company called ISCAR in 1952.
Stef believes that capitalism is better equipped than politics to solve the conflict. He believes that, if economic disparity is at the core of the tension between Arabs and Jews, he might have a solution. In 2019, it was reported that of ISCAR’s 3,500 employees, more than 1,000 are of Druze or Arab origin. In the eyes of the BDS movement, that normalisation is problematic and should be boycotted.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) has already mentioned SodaStream, a successful Israeli company that exports its products across the world. It had been providing jobs to countless Israelis, as well as once employing about 900 Palestinians who relied on the company for their livelihoods. But in 2015, it was forced out of the west bank because of the BDS movement, leading to those Palestinians losing their jobs. That harms the very people the BDS movement claims to support. Ali Jafar, a shift manager from a west bank village, who worked for SodaStream for two years, summed it up when he said:
“All the people who wanted to close”
the factory
“are mistaken…They didn’t take into consideration the families.”
It is those families we should think about when voting on the Bill.
When SodaStream closed its factory in the west bank, it moved to Rahat in the Negev desert. On the final day of Ramadan, it organised the largest Iftar celebration in Israel: almost 3,000 Israelis and Palestinians came together to break bread at the factory. The BDS movement remains against SodaStream’s factory in the Negev desert because it has found new reasons for doing so. It said:
“SodaStream is still subject to boycott by the global, Palestinian-led BDS movement for Palestinian rights. Its new factory is actively complicit in Israel’s policy of displacing the indigenous Bedouin- Palestinian citizens of Israel in the Naqab (Negev). SodaStream’s mistreatment of and discrimination against Palestinian workers is not forgotten either.”
Why are the integration successes of companies such as SodaStream and ISCAR not told? Because they show normalisation; they show neighbourly relationships and peace between peoples. I have been struck by the stories of the Hamas hostages and their families. Some of them had lived in Gaza and moved when the occupation ended in 2005, but still have Palestinian friends there. We do not hear about those kinds of relationships. Extremists do not want to portray any kind of normal life, success or quality of existence, whether they are from Hamas or the BDS movement—neither promotes peaceful coexistence.
The BDS movement boasts that, in 18 years, it has done 18 years’ worth of “turning darkness into light”—that is quite some sugar-coating if you ask me, Madam Deputy Speaker. The BDS movement has an anti-normalisation charter that forbids
“the participation in any project, initiative or activity, local or international, that brings together (on the same ‘platform’) Palestinians…and Israelis…and does not meet the following two conditions: (1) The Israeli side publicly recognizes the UN-affirmed inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, which are set out in the 2005 BDS Call, and”—
this is the most important part—
“(2) the joint activity constitutes a form of co-resistance against the Israeli regime of occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid.”
That is evidence, if it were ever needed, that the BDS movement does not want peace. BDS ignores or rejects the Jewish people’s right to self-determination and occasionally calls for the eradication of Israel, the world’s only Jewish state, so if BDS’s objective is not peace, what is it? At its core, it is antisemitic. The Anti-Defamation League has assessed that BDS’s campaigns often include allegations of Jewish power, dual loyalty, and Jewish/Israeli culpability for unrelated issues and crises.
I will now explain why this has such a negative impact on the Jewish community here in the UK. The Jewish Leadership Council has made the case that public bodies in the UK are more likely to interact with people than the Government are, and that it is therefore important they are trusted by all communities. The JLC believes that most relationships between Jewish communities and public bodies are usually positive, but that this is undermined when those bodies seek to involve themselves in international matters and support BDS movements.
The events of the past few weeks will, I hope, give many people a better understanding of why Israel is so important to the Jewish community. Having worked in the community, visited Israel a number of times and worked with holocaust survivors, I thought I understood, but for many in the Jewish community around the world, repeating that 7 October was the biggest loss of Jewish life since the holocaust brings with it unimaginable pain and a new understanding.
Israel’s very existence was borne of the need for a safe haven for Jews. The events of 7 October were never meant to happen. Hamas knew they struck at the heart of Israel and, therefore, the heart of the Jewish community. When a movement seeks to single out the world’s only Jewish state as a unique evil, it is clear why that could be regarded as antisemitic. There are no comparable campaigns about any other state on this scale—none that mobilise as many people and seek to divide and maintain division, rather than strive for peace.
If they were to have their way, supporters of BDS might claim victory; however, they cannot claim with any credibility to be supporters of a two-state solution. Boycotts harm Israel, they harm Palestinians, and they harm any prospect of peace. The Bill is not a barrier to peace: the BDS movement, and opposing the Bill, are barriers to peace. I applaud the Government for their strong stance in taking action against BDS and for bringing this Bill before the House, and I will be wholeheartedly supporting it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I will now announce the results of the ballot held today for the election of the Defence Committee Chair. Four hundred and thirty-three votes were cast, three of which were invalid. There was a single round of voting with 430 valid votes. The quota to be reached was therefore 216 votes. Robert Courts was elected Chair with 249 votes. He will take up his post immediately, and I congratulate him on his election. The results of the counts under the alternative vote system will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and published on the internet.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
I rise to speak to the amendment in my name, as well as amendment 13, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). Both relate to how the Bill will impact public bodies’ rights to make ethical decisions on matters relating to international law and human rights, so that is the subject I will begin with.
Gaza, the United Nations has said, has become a “hellhole”. Israeli bombs have decimated whole neighbourhoods. In six days alone, 6,000 bombs were dropped on the besieged enclave—more bombs than NATO forces dropped in an entire year of intense fighting in Afghanistan. An Israeli military spokesperson was frank about the purpose of the bombing:
“the emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy”.
Nearly 6,000 Palestinians have been killed, including nearly 2,500 children. Last night was the deadliest so far, with 700 people dead. This is happening to one of the most densely populated areas on earth, where 2.3 million people, half of whom are children, are trapped in an area no bigger than the Isle of Wight.
Even before the recent violence, Gaza had been besieged for more than a decade and a half, with access by land, air and water blockaded. Back in 2010, even Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron called it a “prison camp”, but now Israel has imposed a total siege, cutting off water, fuel, electricity and food. The UN says hospitals will run out of fuel today, and incubators with premature babies will stop working. Israel’s evacuation order demanding that 1.1 million people flee their homes was described as
“impossible…without devastating human consequences”
by the United Nations, and the World Health Organisation has called it a
“death sentence for the sick and injured”.
Indiscriminate bombing, collective punishment and forcibly displacing people are “clear violations” of international law—not according to me, but according to the United Nations Secretary-General. This is in no way downplaying or denying Hamas’s appalling attacks on Israeli citizens, which I absolutely condemn, and I again echo the call for the release of hostages. Just as I and no Member here can imagine the fear and anguish of families who have seen loved ones taken hostage, I cannot imagine the terror of Palestinian families facing constant Israeli bombardment. On this question, the United Nations Secretary-General said yesterday: “International law is clear”. Yet in this House, people do not want to accept that. Hamas’s crimes in no way excuse what we have seen since.
That is relevant to this debate because these clear violations of international law have been given the green light by political leaders here in the UK and beyond, even with an Israeli defence official promising to turn Gaza into a “city of tents”. The Prime Minister has still refused to acknowledge these clear violations of international law and, unlike a growing number of his counterparts across the world, he is still refusing to call for an immediate ceasefire. That is utterly shameful, and it goes to the heart of the problem with this Bill and the need for these amendments.
Israel’s brutal war on Gaza is not an isolated example. For example, the Saudi-led war on Yemen, which I have spoken about repeatedly in this House, has claimed the lives of more than 150,000 people. It has included war crimes such as the Saudi bombing of a school bus, which killed more than 40 children and a dozen adults. That war has also been waged with the British Government’s support, including considerable military equipment and assistance.
Let us find some historical examples. Perhaps the most notable is the Government’s support for the apartheid South African regime, which people should be absolutely ashamed of and embarrassed about. The then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, called the African National Congress and Nelson Mandela “terrorists”, and Young Conservatives proudly wore badges calling for him to be hanged. In each of these cases—whether it is Israel’s war on Gaza, the Saudi war on Yemen or apartheid South Africa—violations of international law and gross injustices have been committed with the support and complicity of the British Government.
If the Bill is passed unamended, on these matters and more, public bodies such as local councils and universities will not be able to make ethical procurement or investment decisions. Local democracy will be sidelined, and they will be forced to ignore questions of human rights and international law. The case of South Africa shows most clearly why that would be such a mistake.
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Zarah Sultana
I am going to continue.
While the Government supported the apartheid regime, local councils across the country rallied around the anti-apartheid movement, with 39 councils across the country having divested from companies operating in South Africa by 1985. If this Bill had been put in place then, that action would have been illegal. That is why a huge coalition of more than 70 organisations have come together to oppose it. Those organisations include trade unions such as ASLEF, the Fire Brigades Union, Unison and Unite, and campaign groups such as Greenpeace and Liberty.
Amendment 17, in my name, and amendment 13 seek to address this grave mistake by protecting the right of public bodies to make ethical decisions, not leaving them at the whim of the deeply unethical decisions of national Governments such as ours. I urge Members from across the House to support the amendments.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Some years ago, an elderly Jewish constituent came to see me in my surgery concerned about her own safety following a rise in violence in Israel and Palestine, and the resulting antisemitism here in the UK. I said to her then that, if the mob ever came for her, before they got to her they would find me standing in her driveway with my baseball bat in hand. I have stood with the Jewish community across the UK, particularly in London, over the last nearly 25 years of my political career.
When I am told that in seeking to improve this legislation, or in expressing doubts about its impact, I am somehow picking a side, with the implication that I am not standing with that community, I find it both insulting and offensive, particularly coming from Members of this House who, while accepting unquestioningly this legislation, have not done so with other legislation coming from the Government. We all have a duty at this point in time, as the Prime Minister and others have said, to choose our words carefully. On Monday, he said it was a time for “care and caution”, and he was exactly right.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Like me, he has spent a lot of time in local government. Does he agree with the point I raised on Second Reading that a key issue is that our local elected brethren—for example, those specifically elected on a foreign policy platform, such as the 17 councillors who served at one stage on Birmingham City Council on behalf of the “Justice for Kashmir” party—may have a specific democratic reason for being there to express that foreign policy view? There will be circumstances in which councillors, including those who sit in the House of Lords and who sit as part of international bodies, such as the congress of the Council of Europe, benefit from parliamentary privilege in expressing their views. There is therefore a risk that this gagging order is not simply gagging what people should expect as freedom of speech, but is also ineffective in the objective it sets out to achieve.
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend speaks with experience, and he puts it extremely well. To assume that councillors are merely elected on the basis of their attitude towards potholes and refuse collection is completely erroneous; they are elected for all sorts of reasons. Many councillors and Members of the devolved Administrations who campaign on social, moral, ethical and, indeed, foreign policy issues would say that they have a mandate, and not even to be able to express opposition to the law while still complying with it seems very un-British, extremely illiberal and unnecessarily draconian. We have lots of laws in this country to which councillors and, indeed, other elected officials of opposing political persuasions can express opposition. To have an exception on this basis seems faintly ridiculous.
On amendment 4, I declare my interest as a member of the local government pension fund, which I understand is the only pension fund affected by the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, it is unfortunate that, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, my accumulated savings are being put under the control of the Secretary of State. If, in pursuit of this control, my pension diminishes in value because I am forced to follow the decisions made by the Secretary of State, what will be my compensation in retirement?
Amendment 5 is about exempting universities as public bodies. There is a technical reason, as well as a principled reason, for this amendment. I outlined my objection on Second Reading, not least because we had just appointed a free speech tsar and legislated for free speech on university campuses, but here we are busily curtailing free speech through this Bill.
The technical issue is about universities being classified as public bodies. As the Secretary of State will know, there has been a flurry of activity in the Treasury because further education colleges have been classified as public bodies, which means all their debt comes on to the public balance sheet. This is another step towards universities, with their even greater levels of debt, coming on to the balance sheet, about which the Treasury ought to have a say. I hope and believe that, when the Bill goes to the House of Lords, the Treasury will want to have a look.
Finally, amendment 6 is about international law. I know that the Secretary of State, like every member of the Government, is extremely keen on international law and wants to ensure it is followed in all circumstances, and particularly in this current horrific conflict in Israel and Gaza. One of the great benefits of our more flexible system is that, as the Government called for boycotts of Russian businesses and Russian individuals following the invasion of Ukraine, other parts of civic society were able to move extremely quickly to comply, whereas under this legislation they would have to wait for the Government to issue some kind of regulation, which would have to go through this House and be debated. That could possibly take weeks, if not longer, particularly if the House is in recess. Amendment 6 proposes that if the Government declare that a country or situation is in breach of international law, other organisations can immediately respond by issuing their own sanctions or disinvestments.
I honestly believe that the amendments I have tabled—I understand that only amendment 7, which is probably the most important, will go to a Division this evening—represent an attempt to improve the legislation, rather than necessarily picking a side. Although this debate has, I am afraid, been positioned as a pro-Israel or pro-Palestine debate, I am primarily pro-Britain. I want to get the legislation right for this country, for the Jewish community and for every community in this country so that we can live with the consequences for years to come.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
Human rights groups have rightly condemned the Bill as an outrageous and unwarranted interference in the ability of councils, universities and other public bodies to use their purchasing power to pursue ethical procurement and investment policies in order to help defend human rights and tackle issues such as climate change. Everyone who cares about issues such as the illegal arms trade, activities of arms manufacturers and traders whose weapons fuel conflicts around the globe, or climate justice, correctly will be horrified by this blatant attack on the basic democratic rights of elected public bodies to act on behalf of the residents who elected them.
The Bill specifically protects the state of Israel, Israeli companies and their human rights abuses from local authority sanctions, no matter what human rights abuses they might commit or are committing now. It is self-evident that councils and other public bodies must be free—and, indeed, have a duty—to act to prevent or discourage breaches of international humanitarian law. It is clear that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, and no local authority or Government should offer support to such activity. The Government’s anti-BDS Bill contradicts the guiding principles on business and human rights published by the United Nations. It penalises public bodies that comply with the UK’s responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. It takes away the democratic right of public bodies to make ethical financial decisions.
The Bill uniquely shields human rights abuses by Israel, allowing it to act with impunity. Indeed, the Bill exempts specific countries—namely Israel, despite its human rights abuses and war crimes—even though we do not know what future actions such countries may take. That is a show of complete contempt for the people of Palestine and the daily inhumanity, abuse and discrimination they face. The Bill is a textbook case of divide and rule politics.
It is profoundly disappointing that the Government are pursuing the anti-boycott Bill at this moment, when tensions are extremely high in our communities. In the past few weeks, almost 7,000 Palestinians have been killed—almost half of them children—and 1,400 Israelis have been killed, and the civilians of Gaza have been massacred by Israeli airstrikes. War crimes are happening in real time. An immediate ceasefire is required, and the Prime Minister, the Government, the Leader of the Opposition and all political leaders in this House should be calling for it.
Boycott, divestment and sanctions are an effective means of peaceful resistance. The Bill is no less toxic than at its previous stage. If it passes, it will close off a vital democratic avenue for the closest representatives of ordinary people at local level to demand accountability and change. It will show how little this Government care about the lives of civilians and the plight of persecuted and exploited communities around the world.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I welcome this Bill, which fulfils a manifesto commitment and restates and protects the Government’s foreign and trade policy prerogatives by preventing local authorities and other public bodies from pursuing politically motivated foreign policy objectives of their own. Some have said that the Bill would limit free speech, but that is not correct because individual councillors and public bodies can still say whatever they like as private citizens, as long as that speech is lawful. But local councils have no democratic mandate to use their control of taxpayers’ funds and assets to create their own foreign policy or to express divisive opinions that undermine social cohesion in the communities for which they are responsible.
We have heard devolution spoken about in the Chamber. I am a supporter of devolution, but the whole point is that certain powers are devolved and certain powers are not. When my constituents go to the ballot box at local elections, they vote for the candidate who they think is the best person to ensure regular bin collections, well-maintained roads or social care; they are not voting on foreign policy, defence policy or income tax rates, because these are nationally reserved issues for the Westminster Government. It is therefore unjustifiable for local authorities to pretend they have a democratic mandate to use ratepayers’ money to signal their own foreign policy positions. This Bill does not restrict free speech; rather, it restricts public bodies from undermining policies decided nationally by a national Government elected in national ballots.
None of the amendments we are debating today would enhance the Bill, and in fact some are intended to make it unworkable. Amendment 4, for example, would make the pension scheme divestment provisions unworkable, and amendments 7 and 21 seek to remove an important clause relating to Israel. These amendments miss the crucial point of the Bill and the reason why it is being brought forward: all recorded recent examples of public bodies pursuing boycotts against foreign states or territories have been against Israel.
4.45 pm
BDS, which we have heard about extensively in today’s debate, is unique in its targeting of the world’s only Jewish state. The BDS movement is not a harmless, peaceful movement; it has alarming links to extremists, including the Hamas terrorist group, which have just committed probably the worst crimes in my lifetime—the worst mass killing of Jews since the holocaust. Public bodies funded by UK taxpayers should not be expressing public support for the divisive ideology advanced by the BDS movement. Its founder has, indeed, repeatedly expressed his opposition to Israel’s right to exist as a state of the Jewish people and has endorsed Palestinian armed resistance. When public bodies seek to undermine British foreign and trade policy and choose to do that only for matters relating to Israel, it gives legitimacy to and encourages the sort of appalling antisemitic protests and attacks we have seen over the past few weeks.
Let me take my home city of Sheffield as an example. In 2019 the council passed a motion regarding its position on Palestine; it had nothing to do with the council’s responsibilities as a local authority, but everything to do with its attempt to signal its anti-Israel political views. And in under a week’s time, on 1 November, the Green party councillors will put forward a motion entitled “Stopping the Genocide in Gaza” that makes no mention of Hamas and their terrorism.
Since the horrific terrorist attacks on Israel by Hamas, we have seen some shocking scenes on the streets of Sheffield: the Israeli flag torn down from the town hall; antisemitic chants on our streets; even a roadblock set up by supporters of Hamas, intimidating drivers and asking for money. I find it unbelievable and shameful that, after witnessing the despicable attacks, torture and rapes of Jewish civilians, such actions can take place in Sheffield, supposedly a “city of sanctuary”. It is very difficult for the Jewish community in Sheffield to feel safe when the local authority—the official elected body—appears to align itself with hard-line anti-Israel movements.
That is why we need this Bill: because yet again Israel and the Jewish people are being singled out and subjected to discrimination across this country and across the world. This singling out of Israel, the only democracy in the middle east, is just another form of the world’s oldest prejudice. Of course the Government of Israel can be criticised by British citizens, as can any Government in the world, but it is unacceptable for local authorities and public bodies to abuse their position to make divisive political interventions for which they have no democratic mandate. That is why I support this Bill going forward unamended.
Steve McCabe
I want to begin by saying that I am not sure it is helpful to link these proceedings with the current crisis in Israel and Gaza, which is what some have sought to do in this debate. I think we should be careful about that and I want to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for the tone she adopted in her opening remarks and for her call for sensitivity and moderation in our approach to this issue.
The nature of the BDS campaign is to promote anti-normalisation: it encourages the notion that there should not be contact, trade, exchange, negotiation, or even dialogue with Israel. The founder of the BDS movement has repeatedly expressed his view that the Israeli state should not exist. For me, the aims of the movement are clear. Consequently, I am utterly opposed to the aims of BDS, and I believe that they are as detrimental to the interests of the people of this country as they are to the people of Israel and the Palestinians.
When I hear people talking about the BDS movement, I often think they completely misunderstand the exact nature of our relationships with Israel in trade, medicines, security and technological exchange, and how people in this country are kept healthier and safer as a result. I am therefore utterly opposed to BDS. Not only does it target Israel and hurt the Palestinians, it is also completely detrimental to the interests of the people of this country.
Just in passing, as a Birmingham MP, I want to refer to the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis), who is unfortunately no longer in his place. I want him to know that Veolia still has a contract with Birmingham City Council despite his great efforts to suggest that Birmingham was responsible for Veolia pulling out of Israel. I think he rather overstated the case.
I say to the Secretary of State and to the Minister, who was extremely courteous and reasonable throughout Committee, that after so many hours in Committee and such a period for reflection I am really disappointed that we have had so little movement from the Government on Report. I hate to say this, but I find it hard not to conclude that the aims and arguments of BDS may not be the total priority. I hope that I am wrong, and I hope that people can demonstrate that to me.
I remain strongly of the view that the Government would be well advised to drop clause 3(7) altogether, as I think it will probably make things worse. I find myself in total agreement with the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) on that. I also remain unconvinced by clause 4(1)(b).
I support amendments 16 and 13. I also support new clause 3, which seeks to provide protection for religious dietary requirements. I think it was mentioned that one of the BDS movement’s proposals was to remove kosher food from supermarket shelves. I cannot believe that anyone in their right mind would think that a reasonable way to proceed, so I welcome the new clause.
We need a Bill to address the iniquities of the BDS movement. We need a Bill to unite people on both sides of the House who genuinely want consensus and broadly share the same aims. I regret that the Bill in its present form is not a piece of legislation that will achieve that outcome, and I urge Ministers to seek a consensus. There is still time to reconsider the approach.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
It seems to fall to me to speak last in the debate from the Back Benches—[Interruption.] Ah, excellent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) and I may be on a similar theme. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe); if I am not mistaken, we visited Gaza together some 11 years ago. I think one colleague mentioned that the question tonight is, “Which side are you on?” I do not think that is the question at all. If I am asked that question, my answer is always the same: I am on the side of the United Kingdom. That, I believe, is where everyone in this House should be —with the possible exception of those who seek not to be in the United Kingdom. That requires me and all of us to define the national interest in the context of that and any proposed legislation.
We can define national interest in different ways: deep family ties with Commonwealth members; our close cultural and economic ties with our neighbours in Europe; our shared values with fellow democracies; and our historical links with nations around the world. But we would place first, surely, our security and the potential vulnerability of this nation to terrorists and nations abroad who would damage us. It is therefore strongly in our interests to bring forward legislation that builds bridges for communities both here and abroad as part of our role as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, committed to the rule of law and promoting the values of free speech and transparency, strong in the belief, for example, of democracies sticking to international rules of engagement because to do otherwise risks us descending to the level of the thugocracies that exist elsewhere.
Where does that leave me and us in today’s debate? It means that we, without reservation, condemn the appalling acts of Hamas in their invasion of several villages and kibbutzes in southern Israel close to the border, their murder of civilians and their taking of hostages from, I believe, 41 countries. It means that we strongly support Israel’s right of defence. But it also means that we believe that the invasion of Gaza by air, let alone by ground, has inevitably already caused as many, if not more, civilian casualties in ways that have already almost certainly broken the rules of international engagement, including in terms of access to water, electricity, fuel, medicines and so on.
I understand and accept that all infrastructure in Gaza is compromised by Hamas. There will be buildings and basements of schools and hospitals and so on that Hamas are using, but that does not justify, for example, bombing buildings of refuge in the compound of St Porphyrius. Our position in this nation is for a genuine two-state solution that allows for both the state of Israel, a remarkable state with so much to admire, and a state of Palestine, with people have suffered since the Nakba of 1948 over access to lands sometimes seized illegally in the occupied territories, as United Nations law makes clear. That is the right position, however difficult to achieve and however abused by this Israeli Government’s continued deliberate building of illegal settlements in the occupied territories and by Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran’s refusal to allow Israel to exist at all.
This, then, is the relevance of a pro-UK policy to this particular Bill. Into this delicate landscape of increasing polarisation throughout the middle east strides the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill. I agree with the principle of reducing local government posturing on foreign policy—some of us are old enough to remember the Labour Lambeth Borough Council’s nuclear free zone—and the principle of the Bill can be reasonably in the national interest. I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak and many others on both sides of the House that the BDS movement is clearly antisemitic. It is clearly aimed at Israel. There is no question about that. But at the same time, when my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) advised that we should therefore stop everything regardless and support Israel and its Government’s statements on any issue regardless, I do not think that that is the case. Our support should not be at the price of explicitly giving the Israeli Government a completely free hand in their policy towards the west bank and the occupied territories, riding roughshod through UN Security Council motions drafted by the United Kingdom. Without them, the facts on the ground, as the Government like to call them, make a two-state solution harder and harder. Therefore, the motivation behind the drafting of amendment 7, which I am supporting so strongly, is not to bow down before threats by Hamas and those who wish for no state of Israel at all. It is not to support the constituent of mine who said to me, during a peace march—note the irony of those words—that Hitler had a point. No, I am not backing amendment 7 to support anything like that. I am doing so because there are many others among my constituents and other Muslims in this country who do believe in a two-state solution and who do want to see peace.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). I, too, wish to speak in particular about amendment 7, tabled by the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse).
It is with a heavy heart that I am taking part in this debate. I was half minded not to do so, because now is not the time. The impact of the awful violence in Israel and Palestine on communities across the world cannot be underestimated, but the answer is not to debate the Bill right now. By all means let us have some space, some time: there have only been statements, and we have not had a chance to talk about it. By all means let us do that, but not this. It was unwise even to table the debate for this week, and on Monday I urged the Prime Minister to change his mind. In his response, he spoke about the importance of not undermining “community cohesion”. I politely suggest that if a Government do not want to undermine community cohesion, the last thing they should do is introduce a Bill such as this.
May I associate myself with the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge)? What she said was exactly what members of my Jewish community have said to me. They are appalled that the Government are choosing to play politics at this time. The Bill was divisive at the best of times, and the fact is that this is the worst of times. That holds true regardless of what we may think of the Bill’s contents. The Liberal Democrats are on the record as registering our opposition to specific clauses on Second Reading, but I am here primarily to talk about the timing.
Amendment 7 cuts to the chase. It addresses the fact that on the face of the Bill, in clause 3, is a reference to the conflict in Israel and Palestine—a conflict that has cost thousands of innocent lives over the past three weeks, and a conflict in respect of which intense diplomacy is required. I am shocked that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, having toured the middle east and having understood the strength of feeling but also the sensitivities, have decided that this in any way helps them to do their very important jobs. Make no mistake: those leaders in the Arab world are watching what is happening here today, and I do not think that it shows us in the best light. If the Prime Minister backs two states and wants to take any sort of lead, he needs to mean it.
I am sorry to say that arranging for this Bill to be debated this week is not the mark of a statesman. It is a disgrace. It is a disgrace because this conflict is affecting families across the UK as well as those abroad. Maybe they are fearful of becoming the victims of hate crime. We have seen a dreadful rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia over the last three weeks. The Community Security Trust has recorded the highest ever number of antisemitic incidents across this 17-day period. Or maybe they are fearful for their family in the region. I have spoken many times already about my fears for my extended family in Gaza. Or maybe they are fearful for their loved ones who are being held hostage by Hamas. If we are going to engage in this conflict, we should speak about how to get those hostages freed.
Earlier this week, I and my party leader met some of those families, including the aunt of Ariel and Kfir, who are four years old and nine months old. I was disgusted to see a picture of four-year-old Ariel defaced with horns and Hitler imagery at a bus stop in Finchley this morning—an utterly grotesque act. I hope the perpetrators are caught and the full force of the law is applied. This hateful antisemitism has no place in our society, and that is not up for debate.
On Palestinians, we should be speaking about the situation on the ground in Gaza and how we can get aid in. Children in Gaza are writing their names on their hands so that if they are killed, they can be buried with their families. I attended a vigil yesterday where we mourned those innocent children whose lives have been needlessly lost. It is not right that innocent Palestinians are being held accountable for Hamas’s atrocities.
I have heard arguments, primarily from the Government Benches, that Hamas are purportedly telling people not to move and find safety, but that is not what I am hearing—certainly not from my own family. I find it deeply offensive for people to suggest that Hamas are giving my family orders. The reason people are not moving is that they are frail and cannot move, but even if they do, the south is being bombed too. The conversation has changed in Gaza. No longer do they ask, “Where do I go to be safe?”. The question now is, “Where do I go to die?”. So how are we to facilitate releasing those hostages? How are we to safeguard innocent civilian lives? It is through a humanitarian ceasefire. That is a position backed by the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, United States Secretary of State Blinken and—finally, it seems—the Government this morning.
What the House should be doing at this time is digging deep into our humanity and our compassion. It is a time for leadership, for soothing words and for calm to bring people together—all people, directly affected or not—and to demonstrate, by what we do here, how to let the light pierce into the darkness and despair. So I support amendment 7 wholeheartedly and I believe that this place can and should offer more than division.
Let me make my final point very clearly. I do not want something like this to drive a wedge between any Members in this House and our Jewish community. I stood with members of my Jewish community in Oxford in the first week of the attack and I grieved with them. We shed tears together. I stand shoulder to shoulder with them now. We all stand shoulder to shoulder with them now. I say to those Members who suggest that I should pick a side or, even worse, that by not voting with the Government today I am against peace: how dare they? I will tell them what I am on the side of. I am on the side of basic humanity. I am on the side of those who want to bring consensus. I am on the side of the Israeli community, the Palestinian community and the Jewish, Muslim and Christian communities. This is a tragedy that affects the whole world, and I say to this Government: do better.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
I support the amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and wish to speak specifically to amendments 7 and 3.
This Bill was introduced pursuant to a Conservative manifesto commitment at the last general election,
“to ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries.”
It is important to note that the wording of that commitment is not country-specific. It is agnostic. But it is very clear from the debate thus far, most particularly on Second Reading but also today, that the measures contained in the Bill are aimed primarily at the BDS campaign that has for some two decades targeted the state of Israel. This is quite proper. Foreign policy in this country, as other hon. Members have said, should be determined by the Government of this country, not by local authorities or other public bodies.
The Bill is broadly drawn, except in one respect, which paradoxically robs it of its breadth. It contains a specific measure to prevent any attempt at a later date to modify its provisions in respect of the conduct of the Government of Israel in relation to the territory of Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the occupied Golan Heights. It is clear from the Secretary of State’s remarks on Second Reading that the principal mischief that the Government intend to target is the undoubted evil of antisemitism and antisemitic behaviour, which have been among the most regrettable—in fact, deplorable—consequences of the BDS campaign. Clamping down on antisemitism is obviously important. Indeed, it is essential. No one would dispute that it is a good thing. In fact, given current events in and close to Gaza—and, indeed, on the streets of London—doing everything possible to prevent it is very much a priority.
It is more than arguable that in the case of public bodies, there is a legislative vehicle for doing that already, in the shape of the Equality Act 2010, most particularly section 149, which imposes a “public sector equality duty” on such bodies, requiring them to pay
“due regard to the need to foster good relations between persons”
of different religions, ethnicities and nationalities. However, the Government have decided that the Equality Act is insufficient and have decided to go further by effectively outlawing the activities of the BDS movement in relation to Israel only, using this Bill as the vehicle. That is not a country-agnostic ambition of the sort envisaged in the manifesto commitment.
This is a broad Bill with one particularly anomalous element. As such, it throws up problems, which the amendments seek to rectify. Amendment 7 addresses the problem that arises under clause 3(5), which provides that
“The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office may, by regulations, specify a country or territory as one in relation to which section 1 does not apply.”—
in other words, permitting a public body to make a procurement or investment decision in such a way as to express political or moral disapproval of the conduct of a foreign state. Clause 3(7), however, goes on to provide that such regulations may not specify Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the occupied Golan Heights. The effect of clause 3(7), therefore, is to make it absolutely clear that the sole purpose of this Bill is to give total and unique protection to Israel from BDS activity.
I do not believe that it should be necessary to state that in the Bill. There may well be future circumstances in which it would be appropriate and desirable for public bodies to seek to express disapproval of the conduct of a foreign state. If any regulations were made permitting such conduct, they would self-evidently be done in circumstances in which they were approved of by the Government. However, excepting Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the occupied Golan Heights from the ministerial power to make such regulations is a very strange approach. In the first place, it is not, as I have said, country neutral, which it should be. The absence of neutrality may indeed cause offence to people from other countries around the world, not least those moderate Islamic states that are doing their very best at the moment to try to defuse the tension that has arisen in the middle east. Moreover, it creates an unacceptable equivalence between the status of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights, both of which are arguably illegally occupied and are certainly in the view of the Government in the case of the OPTs illegally settled, and that of the sovereign territory of Israel itself. That is a matter, I am afraid, that is likely to attract significant international criticism as it may well put the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under UN Security Council resolution 2334. Being found to be in breach of that resolution is not something that the Government should be happy to risk.
Michael Gove
I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate for the thought and care that they have given to the legislation before us. I appreciate that we are debating these measures at a sensitive time and that, across the House, people will place different emphases on aspects of the legislation and the broader issues with which it deals.
Let me be clear: I have respect for everyone who has spoken and the arguments that they have made. Where there is disagreement, it is in the context of everyone in this House being united in their horror of terrorism, their desire for peace and their belief in a two-state solution.
We are seeking in the Bill to give effect to a manifesto commitment, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) has just pointed out. The Bill was introduced earlier this year. Indeed, it completed its Committee stage under the careful and thoughtful stewardship of the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), with contributions from all sides of merit, thought and care.
Of course, those debates took place before the horrific events of 7 October, to which so many colleagues in this debate have referred. It is important to remember—I do not think that anyone in the House can forget—that on 7 October we saw the largest loss of Jewish life since the holocaust. That atrocity was perpetrated by terrorists from Hamas whose aim is very clear and very simple: the elimination of the Jewish state, the elimination of Jewish lives. Whatever the background beliefs or origin of those Jewish lives, they were to be exterminated.
More than 200 hostages are still being held by Hamas in Gaza. Across the House, we grieve for them and their families. I thank in particular the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), with whom I have been in touch, who have been working very hard to ensure that their constituents are released and brought home. I also thank the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), who joined me and many Members from all parties at a vigil in Trafalgar Square on Sunday to call for the return of those hostages.
We also sympathise across the House with the innocent people of Gaza, and with all those Palestinian people who have suffered. We recognise that many of the innocent people in Gaza are hostages too. They are hostages of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the other terrorist organisations that operate within that territory. It is vital at all times that we draw a distinction between those who suffer in Gaza and those who are perpetrating suffering in the name of terrorism.
I am very conscious that we are debating these issues against that backdrop, but it is important that we look at the principles behind the Bill. I also thank our friend, the ambassador of the state of Israel, who is here in the Gallery to listen to our considerations. She and other ambassadors have been working with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to ensure that every hostage is released back to their Jewish home with their family.
It is important to recognise what the Bill does not do. A number of legitimate concerns were expressed that actually do not reflect what is in the Bill and what the Bill is intended to achieve. The Bill does not prevent any individual from articulating their support for the BDS campaign, or indeed any particular policy that the BDS campaign puts forward. It simply prevents public bodies and public money being used to advance that case. Any of us as individuals has a total right to freedom of speech. However offensive or difficult some of the words that some utter might be, free speech is not affected by the Bill.
The Bill also does not prevent human rights considerations from being taken into account by local authorities. The Bill makes it clear that legitimate human rights considerations, provided that they are non-country-specific, should be taken into account. I note the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) about animal welfare. If specific human rights considerations need to be added to the Bill, we will consider that in the Lords. I also note the comments made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). We want to ensure that there is a robust way of ensuring that local authorities can uphold human rights on a non-country-specific basis.
I noted some of the concerns expressed about the impact on the local government pension scheme. Let me stress again that there is no damage to the fiduciary duty that trustees of the scheme will have to uphold in ensuring that they secure the best value on their investments for their members. What the Bill does do is deal with the broad principle that foreign policy should be reserved to this House. It is important to stress that when other public bodies take a stand on foreign policy, they risk vitiating the power of both the Government and the House to achieve goals for the benefit of the United Kingdom and risk creating specific community tensions.
Talking of specific community tensions takes us, of course, to the specific menace that is the BDS movement. It is of course possible for local government to consider adopting boycotts in a variety of ways, but the truth is that if we look at local government and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) pointed out, at the devolved Administrations, the only country that has been singled out so far for boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns has been Israel. Let us not hide from that fact.
The reason for that is that the BDS campaign is in itself antisemitic. It is not exercising disapproval of some particular foreign policy or domestic policy decision of the state of Israel; it is saying that Israel should not exist. It is instructive, though not easy, to look at the communications that the BDS movement has issued on social media since 7 October—not one word of sympathy for the Israeli people in their suffering. Indeed, what it has said on social media, when talking of those deaths, is that “their blood”—the blood of the Jewish people; the Israeli people killed—
“is on the hands of the Israeli government.”
The BDS campaign has said that the “root cause” of this violence—the deaths on 7 October—
“must be acknowledged…Israel as the occupier.”
The BDS movement has cited a variety of politicians as what they call “partners in genocide”: Rishi Sunak, Joe Biden, Olaf Scholz and Ursula von der Leyen. Of course, the BDS campaign also continues to repeat the lie—the blood libel—that it was the Israeli Defence Forces who were responsible for the tragic loss of life at the Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza. That is what we are dealing with, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for making clear the horror that he and so many of us hold for the BDS movement.
There is an argument that perhaps this Bill is divisive and it is not wanted, particularly by many voices in the Jewish community. There are some voices in the Jewish community who have concerns, and we have listened to them, but the representative bodies that speak for Britain’s Jewish community are united in supporting this Bill. They include the Board of Deputies, which contains representatives of every Jewish constituency, Jewish organisation and every Jewish community, be it secular or religious, and the Jewish Leadership Council, which contains representatives of every political and faith tradition within the Jewish community. We have heard reference made to the increase we have seen—it is horrific to think about it—in antisemitic incidents in recent weeks. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) made reference to the Community Security Trust. I have been in contact with it this afternoon and it sent me this message:
“BDS has a chilling impact on Jews, a modern reminder of anti-Jewish boycotts. It also serves to legitimise the shunning of Jews from ‘decent’ society. And having been shunned…that’s a half way house to all manner of more abusive and physical outcomes.”
So we respect the diversity of voices, but when we have such unity from those who speak for the Jewish community—indeed, the Jewish communities—of the UK, when they are so clear that this legislation is in the interests of community cohesion, fighting antisemitism and making the UK a safe house for everyone, we should treat their words with respect.
The point has been made that the specific mention in the Bill of Israel could perhaps, in some cases, engender a greater degree of polarisation and antisemitism. I know that the people who make that argument make it sincerely, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) pointed out, sometimes we just have to stand up for what is right. If there are people who are provoked as a result of that, it is regrettable but we should not shy away from telling the truth. We should not shy away from saying that what has been going on with Gaza’s genocidal campaign against the Jewish people is something that we as a country need to stand against. When the BDS campaign has in its leadership the leaders of Hamas, we need to be clear about this evil and this menace. That is not just my argument; it is also the argument of the Jewish community organisations that I cited earlier, including the Jewish Leadership Council. In its submission to the Committee considering this Bill, it said:
“The inclusion of clause 3(7) recognises this unique nature of the BDS campaign against Israel”.
It stated its belief that if that provision were excised, as one amendment seeks to achieve,
“the very purpose of the bill would be undermined. Such a change would…convert a bill aiming to prevent anti-Israel BDS campaigns from abusing our public bodies into a tool to facilitate it.”
It is debatable, of course, whether this is the right way forward—the Jewish Leadership Council is very clear that it is—but I simply ask: after everything we have seen in the past three weeks, if this House were now to remove a specific protection for the state of Israel at this time, what message would it send? I submit to every Member of this House that we should listen to the Jewish community and the clarity with which they speak.
Chris Stephens
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tone he has adopted so far, as it is important that we adopt the correct tone in this debate. Does he recognise the concerns that not just Israel is mentioned in the clause? This is also about why the Government have included the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights. That has also aroused some comment, debate and criticism.
Michael Gove
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point and appreciate the concerns that he articulates, which are shared by a number of people, but the way in which the Bill is designed makes it clear that there is a separation between Israel, the OPTs and the Golan Heights. As the Jewish Leadership Council pointed out in its evidence to the Committee on which the hon. Gentleman served with distinction:
“This clause recognises this distinction”—
it absolutely does—
“and closes a loophole to ensure public bodies cannot remain tools of the BDS movement against Israel.”
It is also the case that, by making that distinction, the clause—and the Bill overall—reserves to the UK Government the role of maintaining, as we do, our absolute commitment to a two-state solution. As framed, then, the Bill is absolutely not in breach of international law. It enables the UK Government to speak with one voice on behalf of the entire United Kingdom in our determination to secure a two-state solution, however distant that prospect may be at the moment.
Richard Graham
I am interested in clause 3, which specifically states that the exceptions to any prohibition are:
“(a) Israel…(b) the Occupied Palestinian Territories, or…(c) the Occupied Golan Heights.”
What is the distinction between Israel and those two that means that we can still hold the Government of the day accountable for illegal settler occupations in those two occupied areas?
Michael Gove
The fact that they are listed separately and individually affirms the absolutely principal purpose of treating them individually and separately. Were—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but if Opposition Front Benchers think it is appropriate to smile, laugh and joke about this issue, I regret that. If people disagree in a principled fashion, I respect that. But the key thing is that we know there are people who have attempted to use language relating to what happens in the occupied territories—indeed, the former Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis), cited a number of examples of this—specifically to seek to target people on the basis of their Jewish identity, and that is wrong.
Andrew Percy
There is another point. If we accept, as everybody who has spoken today has apparently accepted, that the BDS campaign is a pernicious, antisemitic campaign, we should know that it is pernicious and antisemitic whether it is against the state of Israel or against products that come from the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The BDS campaign should be outlawed wherever it takes place. It is very simple.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and, indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North again made it clear that in France and Germany the BDS campaign is outlawed in the way that we seek to do here. No one denies for a moment that France and Germany, under Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz, are valued partners for peace and upholders of international law.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
On international agreements, does my right hon. Friend agree that, given that the United Kingdom is party to a series of World Trade Organisation framework agreements, such as the general procurement agreement, the UK has a duty not to discriminate in its trade practices, and that to permit public bodies to engage in antisemitic BDS activities would undermine our international agreements?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I thank him for his thoughtful contribution.
I recognise the sincerity and commitment of my opposite number, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). Both she and her predecessor, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), have been brave and forthright in calling out antisemitism wherever it occurs. I thank her for her work and the conversations we have had formally and informally on this issue. It is for that reason that I say, with respect, that I disagree. I understand the intent of the proposal from Labour’s Front-Bench team, but I disagree, because—as they acknowledge in their own amendment for ensuring that people cannot adopt, through an ambiguous form of words, a means of preventing people from accessing kosher or halal food—there is the potential, as lawyers have been clear, for an ambiguous form of words to be used in order, without mentioning Israel by name, to make it clear that a boycott campaign is directed against Israel. I think we all have a duty to be clear about that.
The BDS movement is clear in what it upholds: an evil campaign not just to eliminate the state of Israel but to target Palestinians who work with Israeli institutions. It has been crystal clear in recent weeks in its total failure—not just a failure, but a conscious desire not to express a shred of sympathy or regret for the loss of innocent lives. It is clear about what it wants to do to sow division. It is clear that its actions lead to, and have always led to, an increase in antisemitic attacks.
Those who speak for the Jewish community in this country have been clear as well. They respect the diversity and plurality of opinions in this House. They respect the motives, they respect the feelings, they respect the strong emotions that these issues engage. But they have also been clear that they wish this legislation to pass, they wish it to pass unamended, and they wish it to pass now. I honour them in their suffering, and it is for that reason that I urge the House to reject the amendments and to pass the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Does Chris Stephens wish to press new clause 1 to a Division?
Chris Stephens
No, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3
Exceptions
Amendment proposed: 14, page 2, line 17, leave out subsections (2) and (3).—(Angela Rayner.)
This amendment would remove provisions allowing Ministers to amend the Schedule, via regulations, to add a description of decision or consideration, or amend or remove considerations added under previous regulations.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill
Wednesday 10th January 2024
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 25 October 2023 - (25 Oct 2023)
18:45 - The House divided: - Ayes: 228 / Noes: 284 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 282 / Noes: 235 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I must inform the House that the reasoned amendment in the name of Keir Starmer has been selected.
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am grateful for the opportunity to move the Third Reading of this Bill. As the House will know, this Bill was introduced before the King’s Speech, in the last parliamentary Session; it is a carry-over Bill. I begin by thanking all those who took part in the consideration of this Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report.
Inevitably, following on from its introduction, debate around the Bill has occurred in the dark shadow of the events of 7 October and the continuing conflict in Israel and Gaza. That is why I want to stress, as I sought to do on Report, my gratitude for the thoughtful way in which every Member of this House has contributed to debate on this Bill. While there is, I know, a difference of opinion about the appropriateness of the measures we are bringing forward, everyone in this House is committed to ensuring that we act against antisemitism, everyone in this House is committed to ensuring that we can see a peaceful solution to the conflict in the middle east, and everyone in this House is committed to a two-state solution as the means by which we can bring peace to that troubled region.
The Bill upholds a principle that was originally outlined in our 2019 general election manifesto. During the course of consideration of the Bill we have heard from a number of organisations, both in Committee and in broader public debate about the Bill, all affirming its timeliness and importance in dealing with the continuing and growing threat of antisemitism, and upholding the importance of making sure that the UK Government speak with one voice, in a united way, on behalf of all of us, on foreign policy, as a reserved matter for the Government.
In that context, it is important to deal with one or two entirely understandable and legitimate concerns that have been raised about the interplay between the Bill itself and UK Government foreign policy. I know some particular concerns have been raised about clause 3(7). I assure colleagues that the clause does not contravene in any way our foreign policy or inhibit in any way the UK Government’s taking action if we believe there is activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories that requires to be called out.
We continue to raise, as the Foreign Secretary has recently, issues of illegal settler activity, and Lord Cameron has been clear with the Israeli Government that the UK Government are in profound disagreement with some of those actions and some of that activity. I will come on to that in just a second. I should say that the clause does not prevent the Government establishing sanctions or using travel bans against those who have been linked to blatant human right abuses. It is simply the aim of this legislation to prevent public bodies from adopting their own foreign policy, as such decisions should ultimately be the remit of the Government and this House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove
I know, given the nature of the debate on this Bill, that a number of colleagues would like to intervene; I will try to answer questions briefly, because I know a number of colleagues would like to take part in the debate.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Hypotheticals are not always helpful, but I beg my right hon. Friend’s indulgence in this hypothetical on that particular point about the interaction between clause 3(7) and UK foreign policy. UK foreign policy is clear that illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are against international law. This Bill would provide that, if a pension fund were given an investment policy for expanding, say, an infrastructure fund proposal in the occupied territories, it would have no moral basis for refusing to invest, although that investment would be expanding Israeli policies contrary to UK foreign policy. Can the Secretary of State explain how to unpack that so that what he has just said is what I believe is true?
Michael Gove
It is specifically the case that public bodies, including the local government pension scheme and local authorities, should not be taking decisions that conflict with UK Government foreign policy, and we are absolutely clear that it would conflict with UK Government foreign policy if they were to engage in freelance activity of that kind. However, it is perfectly open to any representative, including any elected representative, to express their personal disapproval of the activities of the Israeli Government or any organisation that operates within the settlements.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I have been listening carefully to what the Secretary of State is saying on that point, but last year, the Government stated:
“The UK has a clear position on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories: they are illegal under international law”.—[Official Report, 23 March 2023; Vol. 730, c. 412.]
To speak plainly, is not the Secretary of State ashamed that, through this clampdown on the democratic right to boycott, his Government are restricting the rights of those who want to take peaceful action against violations of international law, and are in effect siding with those breaking international law?
Michael Gove
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, who has taken a close personal interest in the conflict—I appreciate the sincerity with which he raises that point—absolutely not. There is a clear intention in the Bill, which is to deal specifically with the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign and its attempts to use the legitimacy of local government and other intermediate institutions to undermine the UK Government’s foreign policy. The UK Government, of whichever colour, must speak with one voice on behalf of the whole United Kingdom when it comes to foreign policy matters. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), and the Foreign Secretary have, from this Dispatch Box and in the other place, been clear with the Israeli Government when they think that it is appropriate to criticise their actions and indeed those of individuals operating within the settlements, but there is an important distinction to be drawn between criticism of the Israeli Government, criticism of the acts of particular individuals and the nature of the BDS campaign itself.
I am grateful to Opposition Front Benchers—although we have our disagreements—and to Labour Friends of Israel for making it clear that the BDS movement itself is explicitly and regrettably antisemitic. It deliberately sets out to argue that the state of Israel as a home for the Jewish people should not exist.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I agree with the comments that the Secretary of State has just made. Israel is pretty much the only country that is targeted in this way despite the fact there are a number of appalling regimes around the world. On local authorities, does he agree that a lot of councillors should focus on their core job of running local services instead of virtue-signalling and clumsily weighing in on complex international issues?
Michael Gove
Not for the first time, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He summed up in that intervention two of the critical points in the Bill. First, local government has many important functions. Intervening in foreign policy in a way that can exacerbate community tensions is emphatically not one of them. Secondly, there has been a unique focus on the state of Israel. Of course, there are criticisms that can and should be mounted against the state of Israel, its Government and their activities. However, the BDS campaign singles out Israel for special treatment. We have not seen attempts by local government to criticise, for example, the actions of Bashar al-Assad in Syria or a variety of other regimes that have been targeting innocent Muslim lives.
Again, one point that was made clearly by the now sadly departed former Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, was that antisemitism is a virus that mutates over time. In the past, it was directed towards Judaism as a faith. Then it mutated to be directed towards the Jewish people through direct racism. Now antisemitism finds an expression through an attempt to deny the Jewish people the same right of self-determination and the same right to a homeland that we extend to all peoples.
Support for the Bill from Jewish organisations in this country—the Jewish Leadership Council, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and so on—has been clear, but perhaps the most telling are the words of the Community Security Trust, which is there to physically protect Jewish people and communities. The CST is scrupulous in not offering any commentary on matters in Israel and the middle east or on foreign policy—it eschews doing so because it recognises the diversity of views within the Jewish community on some of those questions—but it has said that BDS
“has a chilling impact on Jews, a modern reminder of anti-Jewish boycotts. It also serves to legitimise the shunning of Jews from ‘decent’ society. And having been shunned…that’s a half way house to all manner of more abusive and physical outcomes.”
When we have seen a 537% increase in antisemitic incidents, I think it important to bear those words in mind.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making some extremely important points about the nature of the BDS movement. Is it not the case that, as he says, there have been very few examples of councils looking to use the levers available to them to protest against other international issues? Is that not because the whole BDS movement—in fact, the label “BDS”—has been entirely constructed as a weapon against the state of Israel? When we look at the origins of the movement, we see, unfortunately, that it is riddled from top to bottom with antisemitism.
Michael Gove
I am afraid that my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Again, to be more than fair, many prominent Labour voices have made precisely that point: the BDS campaign, those who created it and those who run it are very clear that they are singling out Israel. They want to see an end to Israel as a Jewish state.
I am very conscious of the fact that a number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. I also want to emphasise again that a horror and revulsion of antisemitism and prejudice of all kinds is shared across this House, as is a determination to see peace in the middle east. We have rehearsed the arguments, with great contributions in Committee and on Report, and I believe that this Bill is a targeted and proportionate approach to dealing with a unique evil. I hope that we will be able to support the Bill, but as I say, dissenting voices in this House must always be heard with respect. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. As everybody knows, the debate will come to a conclusion at 6.45 pm. A number of people are trying to catch my eye, so I am thinking that speeches should last not much longer than three minutes, to be frank, depending on the contributions of the Front Benchers.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House, while opposing any discrimination or prejudice in the economic activities of public bodies, believing that all such bodies must act without bias or selectivity when making ethical decisions on procurement and investment and recognising the impact selective and biased campaigns have had on the Jewish community in particular, declines to give a Third Reading to the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill because it does not effectively address the problem it rightly seeks to solve, is incompatible with international law and UN Security Council Resolutions, risks undermining support for groups around the world facing persecution, includes needlessly broad and sweeping draconian powers while placing unprecedented restrictions on public bodies to express a view on current and proposed policy and represents a major departure from the UK Government’s long-established diplomatic position on the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Golan Heights, in a way that undermines the UK’s future credibility and capacity to support diplomatic negotiations towards a just and lasting peace in Israel and Palestine based on a two-state solution, at a time when consistent support for that objective is more important than ever.”
Let me start by making clear that the Labour party completely opposes a policy of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. It is in everyone’s interest that we find a way forward to address a genuine problem. Never has that been as important as it is now, at a time of heightened tensions, fear and distress both at home and abroad.
As such, throughout the passage of this Bill, we have always tried to seek consensus. We do not think it is wrong for public bodies to take ethical investment and procurement decisions. In fact, there is a long tradition of councils and other bodies taking stances on such questions. However, there is a difference between applying consistent ethical principles and legitimate criticism of foreign Governments, and what some have tried to do by targeting just one individual state—for example, the world’s only Jewish state—or, worse, using the cover of these issues to whip up prejudice or discrimination. That is completely wrong. For the Labour party, that will never change, and I thank the Secretary of State for acknowledging that we share common ground on those fundamental principles. On that basis, I had hoped that by now we would have a Bill that reflects that common ground.
However, unfortunately, our efforts for consensus have been met with blanket refusal. Four times we have come to this House with an alternative approach, and four times Ministers have led Government Members in voting down every single one of those proposals, seeking not to unite the House but to divide it in every sense. We did not want to be in this position, where the House is being told to approve such a deeply flawed piece of legislation, but regrettably that is where we have ended up, because the Bill before us is indeed deeply flawed.
The Bill contains sweeping new powers that create more uncertainty and run counter to our international obligations: provisions that would ban public bodies from making procurement decisions based on a country’s use of forced labour; a completely unprecedented clause that makes it illegal for public bodies, many of them directly elected, to express their view on policy; a new power for the Secretary of State himself to call in and interrogate those he suspects fall foul of the Bill; and, at its heart, a measure that is incompatible with both the Government’s own long-standing foreign policy and international law, flying in the face of the UK’s obligations. That is why I respectfully dispute what the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks. Explicitly equating Israel with the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights is an unprecedented step. To my knowledge, this wording has never appeared in British statute before, and it seriously undermines our country’s long-standing, consistent and cross-party support for a two-state solution, so I could not be more disappointed.
There are moments when all sides of this House come together to resolve the deep-seated issues facing our communities, and this could have been one of them. Instead, the Government have refused to listen, so as the Bill is read a Third time, we have had to put forward a reasoned amendment as a final plea to the Secretary of State to reconsider. We all know that this is a highly unusual procedure, so I want to make it clear why we have deemed it necessary. We recognise that there is a problem to solve and we want to solve it too, but if this Bill means a protracted legal battle in the courts, creates more uncertainty than it addresses or, worse, simply fuels yet more division, it will have achieved nothing. It could, in fact, make matters worse.
I have no doubt that this Bill will be scrutinised and challenged if sent to our colleagues in the other place. I can only hope that we find further opportunities to forge a consensus, but the Bill before the House is simply not fit to send to them. The greatest shame is that, in this challenging time, we had the chance to speak with one voice against discrimination and division, and for unity at home and lasting peace abroad, and it is in that spirit that I urge the whole House to support our amendment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. There are eight Members standing, so let us start with a limit of four minutes.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Again, as I said on Second Reading and on Report, I speak with a heavy heart and in some dismay, but I tell those on my Front Bench that I will be voting against the Bill this evening.
This Bill obviously comes at a dreadful time, as we mourn the deaths of so many Israelis in heinous circumstances on 7 October and the deaths of so many Palestinians subsequently, many of whom still lie under the rubble. The fact that we in this House would seek to legislate against non-violent protest in such an illiberal and draconian way seems to me tragic at this particular point in time.
As the Secretary of State knows, there are broadly three areas in which I and other colleagues attempted to amend the Bill and have concerns. The first area is, as the shadow Secretary of State pointed out, the separate identification in the Bill of Israel, and its conflation with the occupied territories and the Golan Heights. We believe that contravenes our undertakings at the United Nations and, indeed, in international law, which of course means that the Bill will spend a lot of time in the courts, if it eventually sees the light of day. At the same time, that is a cause of great dismay to our allies in the Arab world, who of course we need at the moment more than ever to join us in seeking peace in the dreadful conflict taking place in the middle east. That we should undermine our own status as fair dealers, as it were, in that part of the world seems to me an unforced error.
The second area of serious concern is obviously the impact on free speech. Again as the shadow Secretary of State pointed out, it seems to me incredible that we are putting elected officials and others in a position where if they just stand up in certain circumstances and say they disagree with the law, they will be committing a criminal act. It seems to me an incredibly illiberal and backward step that we would strike a blow against pluralism in that way. The Bill could stand without those restrictions on free speech, and as the Secretary of State will know, we attempted to amend it to remove them, but that attempt was rebuffed.
The third area is the sheer scale of the Bill’s impact and the number of organisations that will be drawn into it. It is not just the local government pension fund, of which I am a member, but also every university in the land and private sector companies that perform a public service of some kind and are contractors to the Government that will be drawn in. That is important because, as the Secretary of State will know, this subject is very litigious. There are lawyers sympathetic to Israel and those sympathetic to Palestine. From the Secretary of State’s speech, it seems that the Bill is aimed squarely at that particular conflict in this world. Lawyers on both sides will gear up, and an industry will arise to attack, defend, analyse and scrutinise every decision, and all these bodies will have to take significant internal legal advice to deal with it as well. Subjecting them all to this enormous burden seems to me disproportionate to the problem that the Government are trying to address.
Finally, my greatest concern is for the impact on British Jewry. As the Secretary of State has said, he is trying to bring this Bill in to deal with the growth in antisemitism in the United Kingdom, but my view is that the Bill will play entirely into the hands of the antisemites. I imagine that this Bill will be manna to those rotten social media groups and WhatsApp groups that espouse conspiracy theories about Israel and the Jewish community. They will see this, as Jonathan Freedland—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I call the SNP spokesperson, with no time limit.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). I hope that other Members listened to his contribution and what he had to say, because I share his concerns about using domestic legislation in this Bill to deviate from Foreign Office policy. That is the clear concern that many of us have.
In an exchange with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) when we explored this matter in Committee, we talked about what the actual foreign policy is. The Bill, as it is currently constructed, clearly conflates Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights, yet the UK Government’s guidance on overseas business risk states:
“The UK has a clear position on Israeli settlements: The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights have been occupied by Israel since 1967. Settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
The concern we have is that the Bill is less than subtle as a change, if not to direct policy then certainly in emphasis. Equating Israel and the occupied territories is unique in any legislation, let alone in a statement, and it questions the UK’s long-established, cross-party support for a two-state solution based on 1967 borders.
As a party, we believe that the Bill is also an assault on Westminster’s devolution settlements, not just for the Scottish Parliament but for the Welsh Senedd. The legislation undermines devolution and restricts the ability of public bodies to make their own moral judgment on matters of human rights and climate consciousness.
I heard the Secretary of State argue that public bodies should not deviate from foreign policy. As we have discovered in this debate and in all the debates we have had, in 1981, City of Glasgow District Council—a Labour-led local authority—gave Nelson Mandela the freedom of the city of Glasgow. It also encouraged the boycotting of South African goods and services, but Foreign Office policy at the time was not to support sanctions on the apartheid South African regime, so the question again is: could Glasgow District Council in 1981 have awarded Nelson Mandela the freedom of the city of Glasgow, and would it have been allowed to encourage the boycott of South African goods and services, under this Bill? If the Bill had been in place then, the answer to that question would be no.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is doing a great job of putting on record the SNP’s opposition to this foul piece of legislation. Does he think it is particularly distasteful and grotesque that the Bill is coming at this time and that the UK Government’s only legislative response to what is happening in the middle east is to try to bring forward proposals to stifle criticism of Israel, when it is clear and there is so much evidence that Israel stands facing charges of breaching international law and breaching the Geneva convention? Surely most right-minded people in this country who believe in decency and fairness will think that this is the wrong thing at the wrong time.
Chris Stephens
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I think many Members have a concern about whether it is appropriate to proceed with the Bill at this moment in time. Other Members may wish to state that when they get the opportunity to speak.
The Bill extends to devolved Governments and local authorities in the devolved nations; because procurement and investment by public bodies are not reserved matters, it would appear to breach the Sewel convention if the devolved legislatures do not agree. I note that the Scottish Parliament has not provided legislative consent to the Bill.
We are also concerned that public bodies will not be able to make decisions about environmental protections. For example, Friends of the Earth has said that the Bill will
“prevent public bodies from divesting from fossil fuel, as well as diverting their money away from inadvertently funding human rights abuses abroad, such as modern slavery in corporate supply chains.”
Labour rights would also not be allowed to be considered. Poor workers’ rights are not restricted to any one region of the world—we see them from China to Colombia, from Bangladesh to Angola, from Cambodia to Qatar and from Mexico to Romania—and, according to the World Economic Forum, the abuse of workers’ rights around the world reached a record high in 2022. I believe that when public bodies make funding arrangements for procurement or anything else, they should be allowed to consider labour rights. Our concern is that the Bill does not allow that to happen.
I want to make it clear—as I have at every stage of the Bill—that the Scottish National party is concerned that antisemitism is on the rise around the world. We must not look away, and we must call it out whenever we see it. Antisemitism is a truly global and iniquitous poison. The Bill does not address the very epidemic of rising antisemitism that the Government claim they want to tackle. We are also concerned that the Government have ignored the evidence and concerns that many organisations have put forward about the Bill. The Balfour Project, the trade union Unison—of which I am proud to be a member—the Union of Jewish Students and Jews for Justice for Palestinians have all provided good evidence on their concerns about the Bill, but I am afraid they have not been taken on board by the Government when we have considered these matters.
The Government have rejected sensible amendments. Some of us have real concerns about clause 3 and very real concerns about clause 4. I never thought I would ever say it, and I am having to say again that I seek the removal of clause 4. The Government rejected amendments to protect devolution and other public bodies, and amendments to ensure compatibility with human rights. The changing of foreign policy, the impinging on the rights of devolved institutions and other public bodies, the ignoring of the evidence and the rejecting of sensible amendments are the key reasons why the Bill does not deserve a Third Reading.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. There will be a three-minute limit until the end of the debate.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I support the Bill and urge others to do so as well. But I also want to emphasise that I very much respect the views of those who have concerns about how it will operate in practice, and I know that all Members of the House, whatever their views on the Bill, remain committed to a peaceful settlement and a negotiated two-state solution.
I have just returned from a visit to Israel, which will appear in the next publication of the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I believe strongly that we should be backing Israel, not boycotting it. It has had to take military action to defend itself from a vile and repulsive terrorist attack in which more than 1,000 people lost their lives.
Last week I visited an exhibition in Tel Aviv about the Nova music festival, where hundreds of young people were gunned down. The displays of shoes, clothes and bags were chillingly reminiscent of Yad Vashem and the piles of belongings taken from Jewish people on arrival at the death camps. We can be in no doubt that the BDS movement is divisive and damaging: it rejects a two-state solution and consistently opposes efforts to bring Israelis and Palestinians together. As the Government have stated again this evening, BDS activities drive antisemitism. I am especially concerned about the impact of Israel boycotts on campus, where anti-Israel hatred so often morphs into racist treatment of Jewish students. It is entirely unacceptable for Jewish students to feel unable to be open about their faith or identity for fear of reprisals and harassment.
Furthermore, foreign policy is the responsibility of Government. It is, and always has been, a reserved power. There is no need or justification for universities, local authorities or other public bodies to run their own foreign policy. If sanctions or boycotts need to be imposed, that is a decision to be made in this House at a national level.
In conclusion, this important Bill, at a very difficult time, tackles a very serious problem. I commend it to the House and I hope my colleagues will back it.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
It is with a heavy heart, again, that I am participating in today’s debate. Throughout December, alongside the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury, I sought to shed light on the suffering of Christians in Gaza city, who include my own family. Let me express sincere gratitude to Members across the House who have approached me in the last few days to ask how they are. Although the media attention mitigated the immediate dangers, the plight of Gaza’s residents persists—living hand to mouth, drinking unclean water and wondering how on earth the world is letting this happen. I am equally concerned about the impact on the streets in the UK. We are seeing a rise in antisemitism and anti-Muslim hate, which is unacceptable and must be called out.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I, too, extend my sympathies to the hon. Lady and her family. My own council Cyngor Gwynedd called for an immediate ceasefire last month. Echoing people’s concerns, it condemned both Hamas violence and Israel’s disproportionate attacks on civilians. The Senedd has also called for a ceasefire. The Bill will restrict members of Welsh democratic institutions from voicing their views, and I am sure the hon. Lady agrees that such restriction on free speech is a threat to our democracy across the nations of the United Kingdom.
Layla Moran
I absolutely agree. The Bill does not respect directly elected bodies and those representatives. The issue is also about the timing. The death toll in Gaza now exceeds 22,000, and over 100 Israeli hostages remain. I do not put those numbers side by side to compare, because every single individual lost or missing is a tragedy. The humanitarian situation has reached new depths. A doctor constituent of mine who is working in Gaza said that he has seen preventable deaths due to staff shortages, and the medical system has totally collapsed. We now have injured with nowhere to go.
Tomorrow, the International Court of Justice will consider South Africa’s case on Israel’s alleged violations and obligations under the genocide convention. I am sure I need not remind this House that it was precisely local government-led interventions here in the UK—which would be outlawed under the Bill—that pressured the Thatcher Government to add their support to the people of South Africa. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary said that he did not agree with the ICJ case and
“I do not think we should bandy around terms like genocide”.
South Africa is not bandying around terms. The ICJ is precisely the court in which those allegations should be looked at. The principle is simple: the UK should not pre-judge the outcome of the legal case. It should back the process and the court itself full-throatedly.
I end by simply saying that the Liberal Democrats will continue to advocate for an immediate bilateral ceasefire, securing hostage release, delivering aid and working towards that precious two-state solution. Our response to this war will be judged by history. In a fractured world where democracies need to be strengthened and the international rules-based order helped, the Bill undermines local government, damages our global standing and divides our streets. This place should be a place where we unite, not divide people. Frankly, the Liberal Democrats believe that this debate should not be happening. We stand with humanity and peace, and it is for that reason that we will be voting against the Bill today.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
The Government’s introduction of the Bill is welcome and I support it. It was in a Conservative party manifesto years ago, and we have a mandate and an obligation to pass it. This legislation will finally stop public bodies from wrongfully pursuing their own independent foreign policy agenda, which have almost exclusively been the result of divisive, antisemitic partisan campaigns pursued by the antisemitic BDS movement. Of course, as has already been mentioned, that is a movement whose executive board, the BDS national committee, is a coalition of proscribed terrorist groups, including Hamas. So I support the Bill.
The boycott movement has undeniably succeeded, sadly, up to this point in its chilling and racist effects. Who can forget the loathsome policy—frankly, it was reminiscent of 20th century fascism—of West Dunbartonshire Council in 2011, when its libraries banned new book volumes printed or published in the Jewish state? Yes, it banned Jewish books. Allied Universal, the parent company of G4S, sold a business in Israel following pressure from the movement. In a series of councils across England, Scotland and Wales, including Leicester City Council, Swansea City Council and Gwynedd Council, motions were passed banning imports from Israel. They are inherently discriminatory and a breach of our World Trade Organisation obligations. Those councils are an embarrassment to this country and they should have been ashamed of their racism.
The supreme irony is that Palestinian and Israeli businesses in the region condemn the movement. If anyone takes the trouble to listen to the leaders of those businesses, they are instead seeking bilateralism. Nearly 100,000 Palestinians are employed by Israeli companies. Their workforces receive higher wages and enjoy greater protections than elsewhere in the Palestinian economy and its equivalents across the middle east. Regrettably, the BDS movement strengthens extremists and weakens moderates, which is why it has even opposed peaceful coexistence projects, such as Heartbeat and OneVoice, that bring Israelis and Palestinians together.
Speaking as a former Attorney General, I assure the House that the ban will not apply to individuals or private organisations where they are not carrying out public functions. That is testimony to the Government’s respect for freedom of speech.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend has confirmed that the Bill will not apply to individuals, which is absolutely right and reassuring. Does he agree that it is also vital that the Bill should not be seen to interfere in any way with British Government policy on the illegal activity by Israeli settlers in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, or indeed the sanctions that the Government have already applied against some of them?
Sir Michael Ellis
I am grateful for that question and I think the Secretary of State has answered it in the affirmative. The Bill will not change the UK’s approach to the middle east peace process or its position on settlements, and nor should it: whichever Government happen to be in power, it is only right that this House and the Executive of this country make those sorts of decisions. It will, however, strengthen the Government’s diplomatic hand by rightfully returning the powers that have gradually been siphoned away by local authorities, third-tier councils and the rest of it, encourage peaceful coexistence and fulfil our manifesto commitment.
The Bill will push back against the malevolent anti-western forces of Hamas. It is those that threaten our way of life and dissolve our security. It is that movement that has been abetting malicious international forces in Tehran and in the Kremlin. It is for those reasons that the House not only has a responsibility but a fundamental duty to vote for the Bill today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I shall be calling the Secretary of State to wind up the debate no later than 6.42 pm, and the Division will take place at 6.45 pm.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
As we have already heard, the Bill is largely an explicit reaction to the success of Leicester City Council in defeating legal attempts in 2018 to force it to end its boycott of goods from illegal Israeli settlements until Israel complies with international law and ends its illegal occupation. Arguably, Leicester’s stance has been thoroughly vindicated by events over the last few months, during which Israel has launched what South Africa and many United Nations bodies have called “genocidal acts” on Gaza, which have also killed hundreds in the west bank and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, while protecting Israeli settlers as they beat and even kill Palestinians trying to go about their peaceful lives.
While Leicester and other councils have been shown to be doing the right thing, the Government have found themselves yet again on the wrong side of the issue, backing the oppressor against the oppressed and giving the Israeli regime licence to kill tens of thousands. Many of my constituents back the council’s actions and bitterly oppose Israel’s war crimes against Palestinians, and the illegal settlements whose proliferation has only accelerated. The Bill would prevent Leicester and councils like it from carrying out the will of the voters who elected them, tying the hands of the principled and enforcing the will of a Government who have shown that they prize geopolitical and economic ends above the lives of tens of thousands of innocent children, women, teachers, doctors, aid workers and journalists. It is a Bill designed to hobble democracy and decency. It subjugates local British democracy to the actions and wishes of a foreign occupying power. It is clearly also intended to circumvent the will of the court, given that Leicester comprehensively won its case against those trying to overturn its boycott.
The Conservatives appear to have little regard for South Africa’s forensically compiled case against Israel, which has invoked the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide at the International Court of Justice. Tomorrow that case will begin to be heard at The Hague. A boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign lasting almost three decades was a vital factor in the bringing down of South African apartheid. South Africa knows all about the power of such a peaceful but resolute campaign, and is uniquely well placed to bring a case to the International Court of Justice, invoking the genocide convention against Israel. However, despite having only six weeks ago appended their signature to Gambia’s genocide case at the International Court of Justice against Myanmar, specifically because of Myanmar’s treatment of children—
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
There is about £70 billion of local government spending in the UK, which is a very significant economic factor. It is entirely right that, in a context where local authorities have their remit within the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 and the most advantageous tender rules, introduced by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, they are able to ensure that that money is spent in a way that fully expresses their ambitions and the aspirations and views of their local communities. Clearly we need to ensure—and this is why I support the Bill so strongly—that we have appropriate limits when there are risks that that will stray into causing real, serious division and interfere with what is more appropriately national policy.
During my time at the Local Government Association, I engaged in a good deal of effort working with the local government friends of Israel group and observing the massive amount of BDS lobbying of local councillors. I must pay tribute to our local government counterparts. Overwhelmingly, despite that pressure, they took the view that this was not an appropriate course of action, and that in fact they should ensure that the concerns and aspirations of their residents were front and centre rather than engaging with international campaigns that were both beyond their remit and at risk of conflicting with the more broadly expressed objectives of the country.
We should not forget—this is why what the Secretary of State said about retaining the capacity for freedom of speech is so important—that we have counterparts in local government who are specifically elected on an international platform. For example, many will recall Justice for Kashmir, later the People’s Justice party, which became a significant force in the politics of Birmingham City Council. It was specifically elected on an international law issue. Later, its members joined the Liberal Democrats. Clearly, communities felt that the issue was so important that they were prepared to elect local councillors on that platform.
As a Member who represents a diverse constituency and who has heard a lot from people on both sides of this debate, I want to finish by saying that the incredibly bitter divisions that have arisen about the Bill and other issues are not seen and felt by my constituents in day-to-day life. When a local Muslim charity wanted a base, it found one in St John’s church. When it wanted to raise funds to purchase its own permanent base, the local synagogue spoke out in support of that. There is a real sense of solidarity among our communities, regardless of faith or any other element of diversity in their backgrounds. We need to ensure that BDS, which solely targets the state of Israel, is restricted from inflicting any further damage on our communities.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
This is a bad Bill both in intent and in the methods that it adopts, which are harmful to Britain’s reputation around the world, to human rights, to the proper conduct of state actors and corporations, to citizens’ freedom of speech and to the actions of public and elected bodies. It has nothing to recommend it. It aims to prevent any boycott and to affect the right of public bodies, especially those that are elected, to consider factors beyond commercial procurement and investment decisions, such as ethical factors, which are often also commercially sensible factors. It neuters the exercise of choice by pension funds, employees and citizens. It constricts the freedom of expression of religious groups, trade unions and elected councillors. It proscribes freedom of speech in a draconian way, which sets an unfortunate precedent.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share concerns that clause 4 may contradict the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 and go against the academic freedom that is enjoyed on university campuses?
Andy Slaughter
I do not think it is lost on any hon. Member that the Bill flatly contradicts the Government’s rhetoric on freedom of speech in a most draconian way.
The so-called exceptions require actions to be unlawful before action can be taken, but we know how difficult it is for foreign states to have convictions against them in that way. The Government produced no evidence, only assertion, to support the provisions.
The Bill fails every test. It weakens human rights protections for persecuted groups around the world, from the Rohingya to the Uyghurs. It particularly fails Israel and Palestine. It singles out Israel for special treatment. In the words of Daniel Levy, the respected commentator and former Israeli negotiator when talking to MPs earlier today, the Bill demands a lower, not a higher standard of Israel. It does not distinguish between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Singling out Israel and conflating Israel and the OPT breaks the consensus that both main parties have maintained under successive Governments.
The subject of settlements often comes up. For example, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and I raised it in the urgent question earlier this week. Why, at a time when Foreign Office guidance advises against investment in settlements, when the Government have rightly spoken out about settlements being reintroduced in Gaza and rightly talked about sanctions against violent settlers, do the Government try to prevent, through the Bill, any action from being taken against settlements that are illegal under international law? A ban on settlement goods or investment in settlements is not the same in any respect as a boycott. The Government constantly dodge that issue, and they need to deal with it. The signals that they are sending out are entirely contradictory.
I hope that the Bill will be defeated. If it is not defeated and the reasoned amendment is not accepted tonight, I hope that we will return to the issue in the other place and that the Bill will not see the light of day before a general election. It certainly should not. It would be a shameful legacy, even for this Government.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities for bringing forward this landmark Bill. The Government should be applauded for taking such strong action.
The Bill’s intention to promote community cohesion should be endorsed by all Members of this House, especially when antisemitism has sharply risen here in the UK since 7 October, the day that saw the most deaths of Jewish people since the holocaust, in a horrendous massacre committed by the Hamas terrorist group. Jews worldwide have suffered anti-Jewish hatred in response to that slaughter.
Before Israel had even responded, before Israel and its allies could even fathom the full extent of the utter horror sown by Hamas, demonstrators filled the streets of London to celebrate Hamas’s attack. Flags flown in solidarity with our ally Israel were vandalised. In the two months from 7 October to 13 December. the CST recorded 2,098 antisemitic incidents here in the UK, dwarfing the 800 incidents recorded in the first nine months of 2023.
Jewish businesses have been targeted, as well as businesses with any small connection to Jewish owners or the Jewish state. Social media is rife with long lists of companies to boycott, just because the BDS movement does not like the people who run them. Intimidating protests have taken place outside the likes of Zara and McDonald’s. Young children have been taunted after enjoying their Happy Meal at the fast food chain and, in one incident, rodents were released into a McDonald’s chain in Birmingham, in my neighbouring constituency.
Jewish students have been boycotted, with university societies and Sunday league football clubs refusing to play against Jewish players and societies. BDS targets not only businesses but people. It is appalling that publicly funded bodies would give succour to such division and extremism.
Yesterday, I held a Westminster Hall debate on the increase in antisemitic offences, and I was pleased to hear colleagues’ commitment to stamping out anti-Jewish hatred on the streets of the UK. That commitment to reducing antisemitism will be helped by voting in favour of this Bill today.
The BDS movement is antisemitic. The movement is against peace and normalisation. It calls for the eradication of Israel, the world’s only Jewish state. The Anti-Defamation League reports that BDS campaigns frequently include antisemitic tropes of Jewish power and dual loyalty, as well as accusing the Jewish people and Israel of being culpable for crises across the globe. BDS activity advanced by public bodies has legitimised and driven antisemitism in the UK. By exclusively targeting Israel and singling out Jewish people in the UK, it has created divisions that our society needs to be repaired.
This is our opportunity to reassure the Jewish community and show them our support. BDS unfairly targets Jewish businesses and people, as well as Palestinians who work for Israeli companies—I have spoken about that before. At a time when we strive for peace in the middle east, BDS inflames tensions and rejects co-existence. I stand in full support of this Bill and of the Jewish community here in the UK and abroad.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I oppose this anti-boycott Bill on several points. It is difficult to see its timing as anything other than a cynical move by the UK Government. The Secretary of State talks about support for community cohesion and a peaceful two-state solution, but this Bill does nothing to achieve either. Instead, it will seriously curtail our civil liberties and undermine devolution. If the volume of correspondence I have received on this Bill is any indication, the people of Glasgow, as ever, see right through the Tories.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) mentioned the granting of the freedom of the city of Glasgow to Nelson Mandela. In 1986, Glasgow District Council renamed St George’s Place as Nelson Mandela Place as a mark of the city’s solidarity with Nelson Mandela, who was still imprisoned at the time. The point was that the South African consulate was located on the street and was forced to use an address bearing the name of South Africa’s most high-profile political prisoner.
This act of international resistance would simply not have been possible if this legislation had been in place in 1986 as, at that time, the UK Government were still refusing to condemn apartheid. Who would want to speak with one voice when that was what the UK Government were saying on Scotland’s behalf? Indeed, even discussion of such an act would have been unlikely to take place under clause 4’s gagging effect. According to Liberty:
“In practice, a public body seeking to comply with the Bill is likely to take steps to distance itself from anything which suggests that it holds any political or moral views as to the conduct of foreign states, for fear that it could be found to be in breach of the ban or the related prohibition on statements.”
This legislation will undoubtedly alter the executive competence of Scottish Ministers and should be opposed by all of those who value devolution.
The provisions in this Bill are disproportionate and, frankly, unnecessary. The Bill hands sweeping powers to the Secretary of State and the Treasury to request information from the devolved Administrations to assess whether a breach of the boycott ban or gagging clause has occurred and to impose a compliance notice. This is a huge overstep. There are already significant protections in Scottish procurement legislation for bidders from countries where a relevant trade agreement exists. It is not clear what problem the UK Government are trying to fix with this Bill. Worse, the Bill makes it unlawful for Scottish Ministers even to publish a statement that they would have acted in a certain way if not curtailed by these measures. The legislative consent memorandum published by the Deputy First Minister describes this as an “assault on democratic expression”.
As we head into an election year, the Prime Minister is affirming that the legacy he and his predecessors will leave behind will be one of a democracy in tatters, faith in public institutions annihilated and our hard-won rights stripped bare. It is increasingly the case that the only hope left for people in Scotland to protect our democratic freedoms is the hope of an independent Scotland.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Miriam Cates, to speak until 6.42 pm.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I support this legislation, but I find it very sad that we need it. When I first heard about the holocaust as a child at school, I was shocked. I was shocked at the scale of the evil, the horror of what happened to the Jews and the fact that it could have been allowed to happen. As an adult, I have visited Yad Vashem, Auschwitz and the forests in Poland where thousands upon thousands of Jews, including children, were murdered in cold blood by Nazi soldiers because they were Jews.
No one walks away from those sites in any doubt about the potential consequences of antisemitism, but one thing I was sure of before 7 October was that that would never happen again. Surely the world—this country, at least—is alive to the consequences of anti-Jewish attitudes, to the importance of not tolerating antisemitism and to the need for Israel, an Israel that has the same right to exist and to defend itself as any other sovereign nation. But now I am not so convinced that we have learned the lessons of antisemitism. Polling shows shocking levels of support for Hamas among young people here and in the United States. That is being driven by social media, but it is also being fostered—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. With the leave of the House, I call the Secretary of State.
Michael Gove
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to thank everyone who has spoken on Third Reading, including my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), who was articulating the vital importance of recognising where antisemitism begins and where it ends. I also wish to thank those who spoke powerfully from a personal point of view: my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who has only recently returned from Israel, of which she has been such a strong friend and supporter, and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). Our heart goes out to not only her family, but all those suffering in Gaza at the moment.
I wish briefly to address one misconception, which is that this Bill acts as an effective restraint—a gagging clause—on free speech. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) talked of faith groups being silenced and so on. As the explanatory notes make clear, individuals are in no way prohibited from expressing their view, however disagreeable we might find it, on the conflict in Israel and Gaza, or from expressing a view, which I would abhor, that the state of Israel should not exist. What is clear is that only public authorities, not individuals, are governed by this Bill. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) rightly drew attention to the importance of freedom of speech, not least on campus and with academic freedom at its heart. I can reassure him, and he can be reassured, that whatever other misgivings he has about this Bill, it is not a direct assault on the principle of free speech. It is simply, clearly and tightly drawn in order to ensure that public bodies, public authorities, cannot abuse the position that has been vested in them as corporate bodies to more broadly undermine the foreign policy of the UK or, particularly in this case, as has been pointed out by a number of hon. Members and indeed by the Opposition Front-Bench team, to give succour to an explicitly antisemitic campaign. Again, I stress there will be different opinions across the House about the best way of securing Israel and of securing freedom for the Palestinians. The fact that debates are so intense in this House reflects the care and passion that so many Members bring to that debate.
However, the Bill is explicitly about making sure that citizens in the United Kingdom, who have been targeted by explicitly antisemitic campaigns, get the protection for which the organisations that stand up for them have been asking. In the spirit of the Community Security Trust, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council, I hope that as many Members as possible—
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
Michael Gove
I will not as I have only seconds left. I hope that as many Members as possible will feel that they can support the legislation.
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill
Thursday 11th January 2024
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 25 October 2023 - (25 Oct 2023)
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill
Tuesday 20th February 2024
(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 25 October 2023 - (25 Oct 2023)
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, at a time of increasing global division, the effective communication of the United Kingdom’s foreign policy is vital. In order to achieve our objectives, the nation must speak clearly with one voice. It is for His Majesty’s Government alone to decide the UK’s foreign policy.
I acknowledge that the Bill is being debated at a troubling time. Although some noble Lords may disagree with the Government on certain aspects of this legislation, I hope that everyone in this House will be sensitive to the broader issues with which the Bill deals. It will give effect to an important manifesto commitment. It is vital that public bodies are not allowed to pursue policies, through their investment and procurement decisions, in order to try to legitimise a UK foreign policy that differs from that of HMG.
Some public bodies have tried to declare boycotts and divestment policies that are inconsistent with the foreign policy set by the Government. Local councils have passed motions in support of boycotts. Local government pension schemes are frequently under pressure to divest certain securities. Universities, too, have been pressurised by groups that want to impose their own views about foreign policy.
The campaign that has placed the most pressure on our public bodies is the BDS movement. It deliberately asks public bodies to treat Israel differently from any other country, and its founders have been clear in their opposition to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. Not only is that at odds with the policy of this Government, which is to promote a two-state solution, but we have seen an increase in anti-Semitic events following on from the activities of the BDS movement. These concerns pre-date the 7 October attacks, but since then the Community Security Trust has recorded the highest-ever number of anti-Semitic incidents, alongside increasing pressure for public bodies to engage in BDS activity.
The provisions in this landmark Bill prohibit public bodies from imposing their own boycotts or divestment campaigns against foreign countries or territories. It is clearly wrong that individuals who have roles of authority in a subordinate public body can act in such ways. It is also wrong that those public bodies can act in a way that, at home, jeopardises community cohesion while sowing confusion among our international allies about UK government policy.
It is particularly noticeable that boycotts and divestment campaigns disproportionately target Israel, especially in recent months in the wake of Hamas’s despicable terror attack and the resulting conflict. These boycotts contribute to the depressing rise of anti-Semitism across the UK, as reported last week by the Community Security Trust, which recorded its highest-ever annual total of anti-Jewish hate across the UK.
This Bill was unamended in the other place. That reflects the care taken in the drafting of this legislation to ensure that it adequately prohibits BDS campaigns in public bodies, applies to the correct public bodies within its scope and provides appropriate enforcement powers. Noble Lords may wish to table amendments in Committee that can improve the Bill, and of course I am open to considering those.
I now turn to the Bill in greater detail. It will prohibit public bodies from implementing boycotts or divestment campaigns against foreign countries and territories that are inconsistent with the legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions set by HMG. The Bill will apply to public bodies UK-wide. It provides for an enforcement regime with the power to issue compliance notices and to investigate and fine public bodies in breach of the ban.
The main provisions are as follows. The Bill will ban public bodies from considering the country or territory of origin of a product or service, in a way that indicates moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct, when making a procurement or investment decision. It does not prevent public bodies taking such considerations into account where this is required by formal UK government legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions. To capture the rare and legitimate occasions when territorial considerations are relevant to a procurement or investment decision, the Bill provides for a number of exceptions to its provisions. For example, the Bill will not prevent public bodies taking into account territorial considerations for reasons such as national security, labour-related misconduct, and legitimate business and financial considerations. It has been drafted to ensure that it does not have a chilling effect on investments or prevent fund managers being able to assess the political risk of investments.
The Bill will work in harmony with the Procurement Act and will support it in better tailoring the procurement framework to our country’s needs. This Bill will in no way hinder our ability, under that Act, to exclude suppliers where necessary, including where there is evidence that a supplier is involved in modern slavery practices. Public bodies covered by the Procurement Act can therefore be confident that they will be free to decide which suppliers are eligible to bid and which is the best bid to meet their requirements, taking into account all relevant factors. However, they must not base such decisions on territorial considerations in a way that indicates political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct.
The Bill has been drafted so as not to interfere with any individuals’ or bodies’ rights under existing human rights legislation, including the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government are committed to protecting freedom of speech and are not restricting any person’s or private organisation’s right to free speech. This applies to all in their individual capacities as elected officials, and this distinction has been made clear in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes. The Bill will apply only to decisions by a public body related to its investment and procurement functions. It will not interfere with any person’s or private organisation’s rights to express a view or to protest. Accordingly, I have signed a statement of compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights.
On the type of public bodies that are covered by the Bill, they include the devolved authorities, local authorities, local government pension schemes, universities, government departments and agencies, publicly funded schools, and cultural institutions, such as museums and theatres, which receive significant public funding. The Bill will apply to public bodies across the country. It will cover bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, including devolved bodies with wholly or mainly devolved functions, as well as those with wholly reserved functions. As foreign affairs is a reserved matter, we will not seek legislative consent from the devolved assemblies to apply the Bill’s provisions to devolved bodies.
Moving on to the countries and territories covered by the Bill’s provisions, I mentioned earlier that Israel is a frequent and disproportionate target of boycotts and divestment campaigns. To ensure that the Bill is effective at banning divisive behaviour, it will apply to all countries and territories, including Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories and occupied Golan Heights.
Another provision I wish to highlight is one that recognises the need for flexibility when there are fast-moving changes in the global landscape. The Bill includes a power to exclude a certain country or territory from the Bill’s provisions via secondary legislation. In fact, we intend to use this power to maximise our impact on Putin’s capacity to fund his war by exempting Russia and Belarus from the Bill to allow public bodies to continue to stop procurement from Russia and Belarus. This means that public bodies will be able to consider how, in line with UK foreign policy, they can further cut ties with companies backed by or linked to the Russian and Belarusian state regimes while minimising the impact on taxpayers and the delivery of public services.
At the same time, we have seen examples of public bodies making declarations to boycott and divest as far as the law allows. These are harmful even where the law does not allow boycotts and divestments and therefore such declarations ought not to be made. There is concern that recent declarations of anti-Israel boycotts, even when not implemented in practice, have driven and contributed to rising anti-Semitism. For example, in 2019, Leicester city councillors voted to boycott produce originating from the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Similar resolutions were passed by Swansea city council in 2010 and Gwynedd Council in 2014. That is why the Bill will ban public bodies from publishing statements indicating that they intend to engage in activity prohibited by the Bill, even where there is no intention to implement.
I stress that the Bill will apply only to public bodies carrying out public activity. Therefore, it will not prohibit individuals such as elected officials from speaking in favour of a boycott or divestment policy. I understand that some are concerned about how elected officials could differentiate between individuals’ statements that are caught or not caught by the prohibition. I should explain that councillors could place their authority in breach of the ban only if they were making a statement of intent to boycott on behalf of their authority. The Bill will not restrict representatives, including council leaders, from expressing their support for a boycott in a debate or on their personal social media. The Government are entirely committed to protecting free speech, and it is not our policy to restrict what individuals can say. Accordingly, I have signed a statement of compatibility of the Bill with the European Convention on Human Rights.
To ensure that the Bill is effective, we have provided for an enforcement regime that will apply to all public bodies captured by the Bill, UK-wide. The regime gives Ministers and designated regulators the power to issue compliance notices and to investigate and fine public bodies where there is evidence that they have breached the ban. This will be at minimal cost to taxpayers, and we will work closely with regulators to ensure that it does not place any unnecessary burdens on them. We will make secondary legislation setting out factors to be considered or not to be considered in determining the appropriate fine. Public bodies that do not follow the law will also be open to judicial review.
This legislation honours the promise we made to the electorate. It will ensure consistency in the UK’s foreign policy agenda, support public bodies to remain focused on their core duties, and prevent divisive campaigns that target particular sectors of our society to the detriment of our wider community spirit and cohesion. I look forward to working across the House to deliver this important legislation. I beg to move.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I think the best way to approach a Bill such as this is for me to be completely straightforward with the House. We on these Benches oppose this Bill. We do not support boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns towards Israel—they wrongly single out one nation and are counterproductive to peace—but the Bill is deeply flawed. It contains draconian powers and fails in its central purpose, which surely ought to be to prevent anti-Semitism.
The Bill prohibits public bodies from making procurement and investment decisions based on their “political or moral disapproval” of a foreign state’s conduct. The Government say that this is an attempt to ensure that all UK public bodies speak, as the Minister said, “with one voice” on international issues. However, the Government seem to think that there are councils, universities, NHS trusts and nursery schools with their own foreign policies, and that this is somehow confusing to our international allies. In fact, the impact assessment points to just three local government pension funds in Scotland that have disinvested from an Israeli bank since 2018. None of them say that this was a political decision or should be taken to represent any kind of political or moral disapproval, so can the Minister explain how the Bill would have impacted on those decisions? Would trustees be interviewed by enforcement authorities, for example?
The naivety of the Bill is to believe that trustees of pension schemes have, until now, been making investment decisions—which have a profound impact on their funds—in response to local boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns. There is just no evidence for this. The risk is that the Bill will serve only to heighten tensions. I am afraid it plays into the hands of those who spout incomprehensible conspiracy theories and will have unintended consequences. I repeat that Labour has consistently opposed boycott, divestment and sanctions against the State of Israel. We know, and accept, that some campaigners have used the cover of BDS to whip up hate towards Jewish people, to hold Israel to different standards, to question its right to exist and to equate the actions of the Israeli Government with the Jewish people. We know that this happens and it is utterly wrong, but do we really think that the Bill will eradicate anti-Semitism? My fear is that it will make things worse, and it could not be happening at a more sensitive time.
The Bill treats the Occupied Palestinian Territories as though they are, in effect, the same as the State of Israel. This runs counter to decades of British diplomacy under Labour, Conservative and coalition Governments. In 2016, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2334, requiring every UN member to distinguish between the territory of the State of Israel and the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967. The resolution says that illegal settlements have “no legal validity”, constitute
“a flagrant violation under international law”,
and are
“a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution”.
Not only was the UK involved in drafting this resolution, but the Government’s advice to UK businesses investing in the region makes this distinction clear. Can the Minister tell us what the Foreign Secretary had to say about this Bill? Can she tell us who drafted it? It is so strange that a Bill is being presented that so blatantly contradicts an internationally agreed and long-standing position of this Government.
Then there is the issue of freedom of speech. Not so long ago, we spent days in this House on a Bill to protect the right of individuals to express their views. This Bill does not do anything to legislate against the expression of anti-Semitism, but it does curtail the right to freedom of expression. Clause 4 is clear: decision-makers cannot express political or moral views that might be seen to relate in any way to procurement decisions. This is unenforceable. Councillors are elected officials. They have every right to express their views on moral and political issues—some might say that is their job. They do not, of course, have a right to whip up anti-Semitism and where that happens it must be dealt with, but the Bill will criminalise community representatives expressing views in a free and open way that has been a fundamental underpinning of our democracy for hundreds of years.
I listened to what the Minister said to try to persuade us that this is not the case. I am afraid she is being completely unrealistic and naive. Why does she say, on the one hand, that a council leader can express a view calling for a boycott on their social media or about another council, yet they would fall foul of this legislation should they express that opinion in a different context? What will the likely advice be from a borough’s solicitor to a council leader or a cabinet member who seeks to express such views? I will tell you: it will be to keep their mouth shut. Is that what the Government really want?
The Minister says that the Bill applies only when a councillor acts on behalf of a council. What does that mean? It is naive in the extreme. I do not know whether she has served as a councillor; I have, and I do not see how the Bill’s provisions, as currently written, are going to work. Suppose a council leader attends a local government conference and expresses a view on human rights, modern slavery, tobacco production, the arms industry, animal welfare or the environment in relation to another country. They will be advised not to express that view or to tone it down. That is not the kind of democracy that I think we want to create.
As for universities being within the Bill’s scope, they are not even classified as public bodies by the ONS, and nor should they be. Why are they included? Which university has actually acted—not made a statement but acted—as a result of a BDS campaign? Perhaps the Minister can tell us. We have just legislated to place a duty on universities to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom. When does an academic speak in an individual capacity and when do they speak as a representative of their institution? This matters. I just do not think that Ministers can properly answer that question—not when they have an enforcement body with an annual budget of £120,000 to £200,000. I suggest that the Minister might need to look at increasing that, because there are likely to be considerably more complaints and vexatious referrals to that body than the one or two incidents referred to in the impact assessment.
This really does matter, and the issue must be properly answered. If not, there will be the most profound, chilling effect. What would happen if a professor expressed at an event a view relating to China, for example—and was paid for by the university as its representative—at the same time as a procurement or investment decision was being made by that institution? It is not clear from the Bill how that would be investigated.
I accept that there have been some BDS campaigns on some campuses where the atmosphere experienced by Jewish students has been damaged by those campaigns. I completely accept that, and it is right that we do what needs to be done to protect those students. However, the Union of Jewish Students is against this Bill. We need to find a better way to tackle this issue. Universities are not public bodies but are included in the scope of the Bill; however, where is the comprehensive list of public bodies we need in order to consider whether any other institutions might be inappropriately included? I have seen a list, but it is nowhere near comprehensive. It is a very odd list, containing some very surprising institutions such as small children’s charities and the like. This makes you wonder whether the Bill is as well thought through as it ought to be.
One final point is the lack of support from the devolved Governments. The Minister says that the Government have no intention of seeking any kind of legislative consent. That is of course the Government’s right—but is it good politics? Is it good for our democracy for the Government to proceed in this way? What conversations has the Minister even had with her counterparts in the devolved Administrations? Can she confirm that the devolved Governments will be subject to the constraints of this Bill? That being the case, can she understand why this would be a problem for them as democratically elected, accountable bodies in their own right? What have they said to her about what they think of the Bill?
Noble Lords will perhaps remember that we on these Benches supported an alternative approach, during the passage of the Procurement Bill. The approach the Government are taking in this Bill is not, therefore, the only option. Public bodies should be able to take ethical decisions, but these should be based on consistent principles applied equally to all countries. However, the Government rejected that amendment, which would have been a far better way to go about dealing with BDS than this Bill is. Why are the Government hell-bent on taking this approach? I think it is because they want to make political capital out of a very serious issue. This is a sad state for a Government to find themselves in—desperate, in fact. The Front Bench in the other place offered four times during the earlier stages of the Bill to sit down with the Government and formulate a more effective approach. That offer remains open. I only hope that the Minister and the Government are listening.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, when I read through the Commons debates on this Bill, a number of things struck me: the frequency with which MPs of all parties described it as badly drafted, the large number of Conservative MPs who called for substantial changes, and the stubborn resistance of the Secretary of State to any changes. This Bill is ambiguous, confused and contradictory. It is about a specific campaign to boycott Israeli firms and companies based in the Occupied Territories, but it also applies to all foreign countries. It is aimed primarily at local authorities and universities, but it also extends far more widely, across a large and unknown number of public authorities.
Hard cases make bad law. All of us who support the long-term security of the State of Israel are opposed to campaigns to discredit and undermine it. Those of us who believe that a secure future for Israel within the Middle East depends upon permitting a Palestinian state as its neighbour have more doubts about goods produced in illegal settlements, but remain clear that Israel, within its 1967 boundaries, is and remains a trusted trading partner.
The current conflict means that there are passionate views within our society about what has happened on both sides. Michael Gove, nevertheless, has argued that the Bill is needed to maintain “community cohesion”, but the conflict has shown how diverse and divided the British public are on the Israel-Palestine conflict, at the moment. The recent short debate on Gaza, in this House, showed that we are similarly divided.
The Bill is not just about Israel and the Occupied Territories. I will focus on its wider implications. This is not the first time that people in Britain have campaigned against behaviour in territories overseas. In the late 18th century, anti-slavery campaigners promoted the boycott of West Indies sugar. My generation of students boycotted South African oranges and sherry, with student unions raising money to support scholarships for ANC members—at a time when the older generation regarded Nelson Mandela as a terrorist and a communist. Few would now disagree that the younger generation then were right.
The Bill proposes damaging limitations on speaking or protesting against a wide range of potential injustices, based on a single and particularly delicate case. There will be other cases in the future, no doubt, when elements in our civil society campaign against foreign injustice, while the Government remain reluctant to jeopardise trade or intergovernmental relations— in China, Myanmar and elsewhere. However, the Government argue that every aspect of foreign policy must be controlled and directed from Whitehall. As a liberal and a democrat, I insist on the contrary: in a healthy democracy, there should be a lively debate about foreign policy choices, with civil society playing an active role.
The Government also assume that local government is merely an agent of the central state, not to be trusted even to discuss divergent actions. Those of us who believe in an open democracy see strong local government as an essential part of a healthy society, and have watched with horror as Michael Gove and others have undermined local democracy over the past decade.
To me, Clauses 4 and 7 are the most noxious aspects of the Bill. They block discussion of actions against any foreign state. They impact on freedom of speech and extend the powers of the state to inform itself about discussions within autonomous bodies. Clause 1(2) and (7) also inhibit freedom of discussion; the drafting is dangerously authoritarian in tone. I recommend to the Minister the excoriating article that Matthew Parris wrote in the Times two weekends ago, which attacked the Conservative hypocrisy of championing free speech on issues that right-wingers approve of while clamping down on discussion of issues that they dislike.
I emphasise how wide the powers that the Bill gives the Government may reach. Its title refers to “public bodies”, but the text refers mostly to “public authorities”. The impact assessment refers to “hybrid public bodies” and the Explanatory Notes refer to “hybrid public authorities”. I have been advised that there are far more public authorities than the much tighter category of public bodies.
In answering an Oral Question on 23 January, the Minister told us that there are “nearly 100,000 public authorities”, including schools, the NHS and a whole range of publicly funded or partially funded organisations. The Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations 2023, a statutory instrument which the Minister took through in December, provided a lengthy schedule, detailing all the
“Persons deemed to be public authorities”
under the regulations, including a list of 200 minor bodies, such as the Social Care Institute for Excellence, the Sir John Soane’s Museum and Worcestershire Children First. No such list is provided here.
The impact assessment for the Bill implies that charities, including student unions, will be caught by the Act. There is a loose and worrying reference to it extending to “cultural institutions”. I have just read the department’s memorandum to the Delegated Powers Committee, which admits that
“the Bill may … capture a range of bodies that it was not necessarily intended to apply to”.
This all leaves plenty of room for ambiguity, confusion and, I suspect, legal challenge. We will certainly wish to query the Henry VIII powers that the memorandum admits the Bill will transfer to Ministers. I note that one of these powers is justified
“because there will be instances where boycotting and divesting will be in line with the Government foreign policy, and therefore the Secretary of State … will need the power … to allow public bodies to boycott and divest if they wish”.
Conservative politicians tell us that they stand for a smaller state and a stronger civil society. What we have here looks like a dangerous extension of state surveillance over institutions that rightly claim a degree of autonomy from central government. It is against everything that Conservatives ought to stand for.
My noble friend Lord Shipley will say more about the implications for local democracy. I will emphasise how the Bill undermines the autonomy of British universities. I declare an interest, as I spent my career in a number of universities. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, is on record as insisting, as he may confirm, that UK universities are not public bodies, and there are court judgments confirming that. Are universities public authorities? Are the Government now claiming that their dependence on public funding makes them part of the public sector? I remind the House that only 17% of Oxford University’s income comes from domestic student fees and other government grants. For the sector as a whole, public funding is around 50%. Most HEIs are charities, many of them under royal charter, not subordinate agencies of the central state. Will the Minister assure us that her colleague from the DfE will participate in the Committee discussion that refers to universities, to assure us that there is cross-government consistency on what this Bill intends?
Clause 6 makes the Office for Students the enforcement authority for the higher education sector. I hope the Minister is aware of the recent report on the OfS from the Industry and Regulators Committee of this House, which is highly critical of its capacities and ability to balance its different tasks. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 has just added an extra section to the OfS, under a “free speech champion” and staff. In direct contradiction to that new responsibility, this Bill would require the OfS to restrict freedom of speech on overseas matters.
A recent Universities UK survey did not find any higher education institution that has imposed a boycott or sanctions related to a foreign state, or recently come close to doing so, so what is the case for including universities within this Bill? A Government who preach deregulation wish to impose extra burdensome regulation, including the threat of large fines, on one of our country’s most internationally respected sectors. Clause 7, which one Conservative MP in the Commons described as introducing “thought crime” to UK legislation, is a massive intrusion on the principles of academic freedom and university autonomy.
I have some sympathy for the Minister in having to take through a Bill that offends against so many Conservative and democratic principles. She will be aware of the strong criticisms that Conservative colleagues in the Commons have made. The chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee noted
“the concerns emanating from the Foreign Office and from diplomatic posts.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/23; col. 605]
and the incompatibility of Clause 3(7) with UNSC Resolution 2334, which British diplomats drafted. The chair of the Public Administration Committee referred to advice from FCDO lawyers that Clause 3 would place the UK in breach of that resolution. A former Secretary of State for Education tabled a number of amendments, which the Government would have been wise to accept. Both the co-chairs of the All-Party Group on British Jews—one Conservative, one Labour—strongly criticised the Bill.
The Bill has arrived from the Commons unamended, in spite of those well-founded criticisms. It is our duty to challenge the contradictions it contains and the damages it threatens. The Minister must recognise her duty to engage constructively, and to ensure that it will not leave this House before it has been significantly reshaped.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill for the reasons explained by the Minister. My focus today is on one particular issue: the international law exception to Section 1 in paragraph 6 of the Schedule. Consistently with the policy objectives of the Bill, that exception must be qualified to ensure consistency between the view of the public body decision-maker and that of central government about the meaning and effect of the obligations under international law relied upon by the decision-maker. I am grateful to the Minister for seeing me to allow me to explain my concerns.
The policy objectives of the Bill are described in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Explanatory Notes. In summary, the Bill is intended to give effect to the Government’s view that it is not appropriate for public bodies to accede to campaigns to persuade them not to buy goods or services associated with particular foreign countries for political or moral reasons,
“except where to do so is positively consistent with the UK’s foreign policy as determined by the Government”.
The international law exception in the Schedule does not reflect that policy background as it leaves entirely to the public body decision-maker the right to reach its own conclusion about whether the decision, or anything done further to it, would place the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under international law. There are, as Members of the House are aware, many sources of international law. They include treaties, custom deriving from state practice—that is, customary international law—general principles of law, international conventions, advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice and resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly, to mention but some. International humanitarian law—the law of war and armed conflict—is part of international law. Many aspects of international law derived from those sources can be highly contentious. One has only to think of the disagreements expressed in this House over the past few years on the proper meaning and effect of the refugee convention 1951 and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Under the international law exception, it is sufficient for the public body decision-maker to form a reasonable view of the meaning and effect of the applicable international law, even if that view is different from the Government’s. That is entirely at odds with the policy stated in paragraph 6 of the Explanatory Notes that decisions of public bodies about procurement and investment based on political or moral disapproval of a foreign state are permitted only if the decision
“is positively consistent with the UK’s foreign policy as determined by the Government”.
The reality is that the international law exception is a recipe for dispute and litigation about the United Kingdom’s international law obligations and the reasonableness of the decision-maker’s opinion about those obligations. The easiest way to address these problems is to make implementation of any decision based on the international law exception dependent on prior confirmation by the Secretary of State or the Attorney-General that the decision is in accordance with international law.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, this is another pernicious piece of legislation attacking the freedom to protest against injustice and oppression except when the Government approve. It is therefore a Bill of which Vladimir Putin would be proud as it prevents public authorities, such as local councils, local government pension funds or universities, making their own ethical choices about their spending or investment. I am sorry that this Conservative Party is on the wrong side of history, as indeed it was over the fight against the most institutionalised system of racism the world has ever seen, namely apartheid.
It is also abolishing the right of British citizens to make their own choices. Tory Ministers support boycotts against Putin’s Russia over his barbaric attacks on Ukraine but want to ban even those advocating boycotts of Israeli products from settlers in the West Bank who have stolen Palestinian land in flagrant breach of international law. Ministers have said that Russia and Belarus would be exempt, but what about public bodies wishing to take boycott action over China’s oppressive treatment of Uighur Muslims or the Myanmar junta’s genocidal banishment of Rohingya Muslims?
The Bill violates UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which the UK voted for and which declares Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including east Jerusalem, as legally invalid and a clear violation of international law. The Bill explicitly designates Israel for special protection and seems to encompass the illegally occupied territories within its definition of Israel. Surely local authorities should have the discretion to make ethical decisions in line with the preferences of their constituents and the freedom to align with international law and exercise due diligence in procurement.
The Conservatives, I am afraid, have previous form on authoritarian repression of such ethical boycotts. In 1988 Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, having denounced him as a terrorist, imposed restrictions on political action by local councils in support of Nelson Mandela, by then into his 25th year in prison.
This Bill echoes a part of her Local Government Act 1988 preventing local authorities boycotting goods from apartheid South Africa as she attempted to shore up its economy. Local authorities such as Glasgow, Sheffield, Camden, Islwyn and a host of others decided not to buy apartheid goods. In 1981 Sheffield became the first to pledge to end all links to apartheid South Africa by withdrawing pension fund investments from companies with South African subsidiaries and barring its whites-only sports teams from playing on Sheffield’s sports fields. Others followed, including Cambridge, Newcastle, Glasgow and most inner London boroughs.
By 1985 more than 120 local councils had taken some form of action, from banning South African produce in their schools to granting the freedom of their city to Nelson Mandela, Glasgow City Council being the first. In London, Camden Council renamed the street where the Anti-Apartheid Movement had its office Mandela Street. Other cities, such as Leeds with its Mandela Gardens, bestowed honours on Nelson Mandela. The 1988 legislation did not work. By the time the Act came into effect, the apartheid regime was collapsing and the release of Nelson Mandela was looming.
The right to boycott is a principle that has had a massive impact for good. International pressure to cut links with the apartheid regime included disinvesting, not buying goods produced by it and not providing sporting or cultural cover for a regime that the United Nations had deemed a crime against humanity. Democratically elected local authorities should be able to use their resources in ways that do not sustain oppressive regimes where human rights are violated.
For 35 years a consumer boycott was at the heart of anti-apartheid campaigns in Britain. Hundreds of thousands of British people who never attended a meeting or demonstration showed their opposition to apartheid by refusing to buy goods from South Africa. I took part in action to plaster “Danger: Product of Apartheid” stickers on South African products in supermarkets.
The objective of local councils, joined by student unions, was to create apartheid-free zones. From the early 1970s, almost every university and college in Britain joined in. At more than half, students called on the university authorities to sell their shareholdings in British companies with South African interests and pressed for total disinvestment. Many student unions also banned South African goods from their bars and canteens, and their protests drove Barclays Bank off campuses, forcing it to close down its South African operations.
In 1964, the University of London Union made Nelson Mandela its honorary president. In the 1980s, many student unions named buildings in honour of Mandela and initiated moves to grant him an honorary degree. The British Anti-Apartheid Movement’s boycott campaign was hugely successful, lifted only in September 1993 after South Africa was irrevocably set on the path to democratic elections. Yet, and this is my key point, as Richard Hermer KC of Matrix Chambers stated clearly in paragraph 13 of his legal opinion on the Bill:
“Had legislation of this nature been in effect in the 1980s it would have rendered it unlawful to refuse to source goods from apartheid South Africa”.
Shame on this Government for introducing this shameless Bill. I trust that your Lordships’ House will dismember it through amendments and stand up for human rights worldwide.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, in her opening speech, the Minister rightly reminded us of the very difficult circumstances, particularly in Israel and Gaza, that are the background to the Bill, while we have just heard in that powerful intervention a reminder of the lively public debate about the case for and against boycotts, divestment and sanctions. However, whatever we may think of those issues, surely across the House people are shocked by clauses of a Bill with titles such as:
“Disapproval of foreign state conduct prohibited”
and
“Related prohibition on statements”.
It is indeed to be an offence for someone to indicate that they would intend to act in such a way were it lawful to do so. These are shocking provisions to bring before this House.
Many of us debate these issues in a host of environments, including this Chamber, and many of us have had responsibilities in public bodies and public authorities. It is very hard to draw the distinction that the Minister has attempted to draw between somehow acting in a leadership role in a public body and expressing a personal opinion. That is a distinction that I do not believe will bear the weight that she hopes to put on it.
There was a manifesto commitment, of course, which was clearly put:
“We will ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries”.
There is nothing there about expressions of view or statements of opinion. It is focused entirely on banning BDS campaigns. The Government can claim a manifesto right for that proposal but nothing that goes beyond it.
The Minister has said in her letter to us about this legislation—and this is an argument that we have heard elsewhere—that one argument for it is that such campaigns will damage community cohesion. That is a legitimate concern and of course it needs to be taken into account, but I have to say that if there had been an attempt to amend the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill so that freedom of speech was not permitted where it would damage community cohesion, the Government rightly would have had nothing to do with such an argument as a constraint on activity and freedom of speech. It would be a suitable irony, if the Bill goes forward as currently proposed with new powers for the Office for Students, if the newly appointed free speech tsar should be given authority as well for trying to implement the provisions that the Government are now putting forward.
The parallel with the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act is relevant since, as we have heard, universities are clearly covered in this Bill under a government definition of “public bodies”. This creeping definition of public bodies is another worrying feature of the Bill. One reason why Britain has such an internationally respected and successful university system is the autonomy of our universities. We cannot carry on, week by week and month by month, bringing in more regulation and more legislation that tries to control what they do without jeopardising their position as autonomous institutions. Indeed, we know that the Office for National Statistics is currently reviewing their position as to whether they should count as part of the public sector. Every time we add a new set of instructions as to what universities should do, we increase the risk that they are classified as part of the public sector and become subject to far heavier public sector control.
As well as community cohesion, the other argument, which we have heard both in the other place and here, is that it is not the role of all these bodies to run the Government’s foreign policy. I am not sure that I completely understand this argument. It is perfectly clear where the Government’s foreign policy resides. I have enormous respect for the work of my noble friend the Foreign Secretary. I think we know what his foreign policy is; occasional actions by other bodies do not interfere with any understanding of what foreign policy is or should be. However, it is absolutely clear—and encouraged by the Government themselves in other guidance—that bodies such as universities should take account of legitimate foreign policy concerns. I used to sit on the board of UKRI when the Government introduced some of this guidance and, as a visiting professor at King’s and a member of the council of the University of Southampton, I am very aware of the Trusted Research Guidance for Academics. It asks and encourages universities to know their partners. It asks them to address questions such as:
“Are there any potential ethical or moral concerns for the application of your research? … Could your research be used to support activities in other countries with ethical standards different from our own, such as internal surveillance and repression?”.
It goes on to urge universities to note the importance of understanding the “democratic and ethical values” of the country that they partner. So that is absolutely encouraged by the Government but meanwhile, in this legislation, explicit consideration of such issues is apparently also to be forbidden.
I was privileged to serve in the Government of my noble friend the Foreign Secretary. One of his best slogans was that he believed in a big society with a small state. This is absolutely a “big state with a smaller society” Bill. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to consider amendments to it. I believe it will be possible to amend the legislation in ways which are still consistent with the manifesto pledge on which the Government were elected.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of the Labour Climate and Environment Forum and of the Royal Veterinary College.
This law is indeed pernicious, as has been aptly shown by the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Hain. It is a Bill aimed specifically at the BDS movement. The main targets are ostensibly official boycotts and official divestment, but the memorandum document acknowledges that it would be difficult to define the precise limits of boycotts or divestments so, to prevent that, the Bill is cast in broader terms of “procurement and investment decisions”. That, from my point of view, was mistake No. 1. The result is that the Bill would have serious impacts on a wide range of organisations. I honestly cannot believe that the Government intend such collateral damage to happen.
The Bill would constrain this wide range of public bodies from taking procurement and investment decisions that incentivise ethical business, environmental responsibility and climate change action. Public procurement and the Local Government Pension Scheme’s investments are important levers for change—in environmental improvement, climate change and social welfare. It is vital that we continue to drive ESG considerations through investment and purchasing decisions.
The Bill creates a really unhelpful confusion over what is and is not acceptable when factoring in risk on environmental, social and governance issues as legitimate investment risks that need to be taken into account. The Bill could be interpreted as preventing action on taking these legitimate risks into account, which would be directly at odds with the fiduciary duty of pension scheme trustees. It is almost impossible to take account of human, environmental and governance issues in particular circumstances of contracts or investments without also taking account of abuses in a territorial element. For example, if a decision was made, either by a pension scheme or public procurer, that they would not have anything to do with palm oil grown in an unsustainable fashion, that could be seen as being against the palm oil countries because it is their policies that are allowing unsustainable production to take place.
The most heinous part of the Bill in practical terms is Clause 5, in that it opens up a wide range of collateral damage through judicial review. It is particularly dubious. Clause 5(5) and (6) are incredibly widely drawn. They allow any interested person with
“sufficient interest in the subject-matter of the proposed application”
to apply for a judicial review. That is amazingly wide. It allows anybody, from anywhere in the world—indeed, anyone walking along the street—to raise judicial review concerns. To me, that is the richest thing in this clause because over the last few years the Government have tried consistently to narrow the criteria for being able to bring judicial review on environmental grounds. I ask the Minister: on what basis have the Government decided that other interested parties, in a very wide definition, should be able to initiate judicial reviews against local authorities and the Local Government Pension Scheme? How will they prevent the downside of simply anyone with a grudge having a go?
The question of financially material risks is the subject of a lot of guidance. The Law Commission is clear that investors must consider financially material risks in all their investment decisions. The Bill makes no provision for investors to take account of the financial risk or impact of the asset they may or may not be buying or investing in. This is something that investors and members of pension schemes are quite rightly increasing as a focus in their considerations. The Financial Markets Law Committee recently took the view that such considerations were compatible with investors’ fiduciary duty. Will the Minister undertake to include the risk of fiduciary material risks and the impact of investment risks in paragraph 4 of the Schedule?
A key way in which pension schemes, investment managers and the Local Government Pension Scheme generally manage climate risk to scheme members is through engagement with the companies in which they invest and by voting at their AGMs. Clause 2 designates investment decisions as including “management”. Is “management” that engagement activity—that activism at AGMs? Does this leave the Local Government Pension Scheme open to challenge on such engagement? Can the Government clarify the meaning of “management”? If they cannot clarify it sufficiently, will they remove it?
Does the Bill cover the pension scheme Nest, which covers automatic enrolment, and the Pension Protection Fund? Will these same considerations apply to trustees of these two funds? In particular, Nest offers ethical and Sharia funds for members who wish their pension funds to reflect their moral and religious views. Will that become impossible in the future?
The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, talked about universities being included in the Bill, despite their not being public bodies. The fact that the Bill is a disproportionate solution to the problem has caused this, in that it has severe consequences for the higher education sector. I will not repeat the points the noble Lord made and will say simply that they have to be addressed if our university sector is not going to be further constrained. Are the universities some of the bodies that are caught by mistake by the Bill, and will the Government exempt universities from its provisions?
The Minister kind of said that the issues from the devolved Governments were inconsequential because foreign policy is a UK-wide government responsibility and not devolved. But we cannot overlook that the Welsh Government are committed to using procurement as a lever for driving economic, social and environmental benefits. We cannot overlook that the Scottish Government have developed a strategy on public procurement that places a strong emphasis on climate change. Since the Government have not sought legislative agreement with the devolved Governments, how do they intend to deal with these devolved procurement policies?
This is not an unintended consequences Bill—which, being kind, I originally thought it was—but a pernicious Bill, and I hope that the Minister is sincere about considerable amendment being possible.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I wish to speak on only one issue, one that the noble Baroness who preceded me has just dealt with: the way the Bill works with devolution. It is important to understand the context. The Bill is so widely drawn that it deals with decisions or views that express disapproval of foreign state conduct. It is all justified on the basis of foreign policy, but it is very important to distinguish between the wide terms of the Bill and the much narrower interests of British foreign policy. That is important for two reasons, to which I shall come.
It seems clear from the Bill and the various devolution statutes that the Bill affects powers that have been devolved to the national Parliaments and Governments. I thought this was not in dispute to a large extent, because pages 13 and 14 of the Explanatory Notes, first, tick boxes that say that legislative consent would be sought and, secondly, seem to accept that, at least as regards the executive powers of Ministers, devolution powers are engaged. I very much hope that the Government have not changed their position on that and that they will not proceed with this legislation without obtaining legislative consent. There have been far too many instances where this Government have overridden the devolution settlements, and it is not in the interests of the unity of the United Kingdom that this is continued.
As I understand it, it is claimed that much of the Bill does not involve devolved competences because the general reservations in most of the devolution settlements expressly reserve international relations, the regulation of international trade, and international development assistance and co-operation, although there are qualifications to that. In a Second Reading debate, I do not want to go into the finer and more detailed and difficult legal points in relation to the devolved settlements, and I am sure that the Minister, in replying at a late hour this evening, will not want to deal with that.
I return to what I regard as a central point. As I understand it, the Bill’s wording is intended to prevent the devolved Governments adopting a procurement policy based on their disapproval of the policies or conduct of any state. That is extremely wide. It is not confined to conduct that is in conflict with the foreign policy of the United Kingdom. One can understand why relations with foreign policy are reserved and departures from UK foreign policy might be justified as a reservation, but, given the wide scope, this is very difficult.
Secondly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, has shown, the exceptions in Schedule 2 are extremely imprecisely drawn. I agree completely with what he said about international relations. If you look at the one in relation to environmental conduct, you can see that it is even wider as it applies to something that may be an offence under the laws of any state. These points are important because of Clause 5, which permits judicial review. If there was no judicial review in it, one could expect the good sense of government not to intervene—but, once you open up judicial review, you are vulnerable to people who want to use it in this sort of policy area for commercial or political advantage. So the exact precision of this Bill is of great importance for that reason.
I have one question for the Minister, which I hope that she will be able to answer, but—bearing in mind what I see as very serious flaws in this Bill—there is another question. If, for example, the Bill when an Act is to work properly, how will we deal between national Governments and with local authorities in determining what they can do that is consistent with British foreign policy and with what is, on any reading, disapproval of the conduct of a foreign state? Is a blanket prohibition to apply, or will there be some mechanism? It is extremely unclear from the Bill how in practice this will work, particularly in the light of the availability of judicial review for persons who wish to cause mischief to bring proceedings.
There should be a forum for intergovernmental discussion of these issues, and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to deal with this dichotomy between the interests of foreign policy and the blanket prohibition and a sensible procurement policy, whereby the devolved Governments and others can use their procurement and other powers in a wide compass without fear of litigation.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, this Bill is ill judged, ill drafted and ill timed. It offends on all three of those points. It is ill judged because it is brought forward purportedly with a narrow political purpose, and one that might be felt to be in some quarters unexceptional. However, it goes far beyond that, because it will have a widespread and chilling effect on decision-making around ethical investment, environmental considerations and human rights. It will have a disastrous consequence globally in all three of those areas, while purporting to deal with one particular narrow mischief that it seeks to address.
As has been pointed out already in our deliberations, it is ill drafted because of its extremely loose terminology —unprecedentedly loose in its references to moral and political considerations. It is open to the widest of interpretations and gives exceptional powers to Secretaries of State, which will put them at odds with national parliaments and assemblies and with local government. It will create constitutional confusion and conflict.
It is ill timed because it is being introduced into our Parliament at a particular moment in history when there is widespread concern about human rights violations in sovereign states, which are causing much wider concerns, about the actions of some sovereign states in invading the territories of others and about conflicts, with international and domestic impacts, around the illegal occupation of areas of sovereign states in our world. Frankly, nothing could be more designed to impact adversely on community cohesion than this Bill or to yet further undermine the reputation of this country as an upholder of international law. It therefore offends on all three points.
I have to say that I have been an activist in relation to boycotts. I was a member of a local authority which in December 1983 passed a resolution against apartheid and in support of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners in South Africa. Had this law been in place at the time, it would have put us in immediate conflict with the law and been illegal: there is no doubt about that. Yet we as a local authority in London at that time represented the voice of Londoners on apartheid. They felt that apartheid was morally and politically wrong—all things that are apparently illegitimate in this piece of legislation. Well, Londoners were right and government was wrong. Surely on all sides of the House we can agree that sometimes that happens.
What really matters in the world is not what Governments say or do but what people say, do and think. People matter more than Governments. If the Minister is concerned about sowing confusion internationally, I tell her as someone who is proud to have had the job of representing Crown and country abroad that the saving grace of Britain’s reputation in South Africa was not its Governments, of any political persuasion—I sought to represent Her Majesty’s Government at a time of considerable concern in South Africa and globally about Iraq—but its people. Trade unions, churches and the Mothers’ Union in Brighton led a boycott in relation to South African origins in that city which is remembered to this day in East Brighton in South Africa. So, whatever the reputation of the British Government, the British people are respected because of their steadfast belief in human rights and their activism and willingness to do something about it. It is that activism and willingness that are attacked by this Bill.
I draw to the attention of the House the proper concerns of the Society of Friends—the Quakers—about this Bill in its helpful briefing to us:
“We know from experience that grassroots action can be an effective, peaceful way to bring about lasting positive change. In severely limiting the ethical decisions that public bodies can make, we are concerned that the Bill restricts Quakers and other people of faith from putting their faith into action by campaigning on matters of conscience, particularly at the local authority level where opportunities for citizens to influence democratic decisions are greater”.
The Society of Friends is right. The Government have to answer them, and all people of faith and conscience concerned about human rights abuses, apartheid and a range of issues, and tell them why it is wrong for them to support local action and public authorities standing up for the environment, human rights and the values that our country surely represents.
The Bill limits and chills action in all those areas. The exceptions are too narrowly defined, in that they fail to cover human rights. The Bill exceeds its stated purpose in the Conservative Party’s manifesto. It provides the Secretary of State with exceptional and unnecessary additional powers; it places unnecessary and cumbersome restrictions on public authorities; it limits the ability of local authority pension funds to perform their stewardship responsibilities; and it offends in every way against the very best that this nation represents. For that reason, we need to scrutinise it in a way that ensures that it does not leave this place as it is now. If it does, it will destroy the reputation that this country has built up over many years. We must not allow this Government to do that—not in their zombie year.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I would like to add a few facts to allow the House to consider how it makes up its mind on the principle and the detail of the Bill. The reality is that the Bill has been sold as assisting the Jewish community on the BDS campaign targeting Israel that has been going for many years. It would be inaccurate for any Member of the House to think that this was something in the future. The BDS campaign has had a plethora of resolutions passed across the public sector over many years.
I will cite one example as an illustration of the effectiveness—or otherwise—of this campaign. There is a student union that has had a BDS policy for 15 years. I will not give it additional attention or hassle by naming it. It is publicised on its website; there is an educational tool for anyone who wishes to look at it. At the same time, the student union sells kosher products, some of which are available only from Israel. It does so as a duty of care to its Jewish students. In the context of a BDS policy passed for the last 15 years, it is selling kosher products—including Israeli products—in its shop.
If the objective of the BDS campaign is to boycott and divest from Israel, I suggest that factually it is the most unsuccessful campaign in all our lifetimes, because it has manifestly failed to do that. One of the reasons is that, if we want to be honest about boycotting Israeli products, the key products that one would start by never using would be computers and mobile phones. They would be at the heart of it, because that is where Israeli products have the maximum impact on all our lives.
There is one exception in this country: pharmaceuticals. On the balance of probabilities, each of our households will be using Israeli pharmaceuticals. I will cite the example of naloxone, which is the only drug available for bringing people round after a heroin opiate overdose and saving lives. Its introduction in this country has been a major lifesaver—fact. The idea that the NHS would not use naloxone is a nonsense.
Therefore, those resolutions are there but have not been implemented. That is a consideration—draw what conclusions one chooses to from it.
On managing expectations, it is important to look at what the impact will be of any legislation we pass, whether amended or otherwise, because there can be unintended consequences. I will cite a recent example. On the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, I raised some questions about whether there could be unintended consequences by shifting more extreme protests from the public realm to the university realm, using the rationale that there is absolute freedom of speech in the university realm. I am sad to report to the House that my questions and warnings have proved true. I speak to universities every week and to the Union of Jewish Students most days, and that is precisely what is happening in our country now: extremists are moving their protests off the public realm to the university realm, nearer Jewish students, using the excuse and rationale that free speech goes in any way in universities. That will need to be considered, because it is an unintended consequence of that legislation—which I supported, by the way.
I return to managing expectations. Let us take the university sector. There has not been disinvestment from Israel in the university sector, but let me tell the House where this campaign is most pernicious: academic boycotts. They are not covered in the Bill, and I have not found a way in which I can amend it, but there may be greater brains here who could assist. Academic boycotts are attempts to stop university lecturers or researchers doing this or that kind of research in co-operation with Israelis, and sometimes beyond Israelis. That is the most pernicious and most regular form of campaign. It is hard to regulate for that because it is normally peer-group pressure that leads to it.
This Bill does not address academic boycotts at all, and nor does it deal with the issue of the Jewish way of life, which manifests, for example, in access to kosher foods. I will pose one question; it is not a statement. If we legislate as framed at the moment, will it make the Sainsbury’s incidents that we are seeing, where the targeting of the BDS campaign shifts from the university or municipality to the supermarket and its products, more likely, less likely or the same? Will the Jewish independent store be more or less targeted? It seems to me that these are fundamental issues about how the Jewish community lives its life.
My fear with any legislation is that, if it is rushed through, those unintended consequences will come to fruition. I appeal to all Front Benches: frankly, the Jewish community is stronger and better protected when there is a political consensus across political parties. I will chair a meeting myself—if the two sides are not prepared to, or cannot, get together—for whatever party wants to participate. That leaves the Jewish community stronger. It is essential that that is part of the Bill’s objective.
I have one final point. Because I know the House loves its Brexit consequences, I would like to warm its heart by suggesting that there is one here. If a local authority decides that it wants to campaign for a local factory that is being shut down as part of the supply chain, for example, in the automotive industry—by campaigning that the products are bought from there and not, say, from Germany, Japan, China or wherever—is this Bill an impediment to it? For most trade unionists who voted for Brexit, the objective of buying British, manufacturing British and having British steel, rather than importing from abroad, was the biggest single, individual motivator. That is a question that I want clarifying: is that a problem with this Bill? If it is, the Bill would not be fit for purpose.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, it is rare that a Bill with such a prosaic and innocuous title contains within it such varied threats to foundational democratic principles and practices. This is a Bill that, in the name of defending the rights of a particular minority, infringes those rights and the rights of us all, while establishing multiple dangerous precedents.
I start with the logic of the Bill, which involves a sequence of inferences that, frankly, do not make sense to me. It starts with a desire we all share: to counter anti-Semitism. From this, it deduces the wisdom of banning the practice of boycotts of Israel by UK public authorities and associated bodies on the grounds that these practices often promote anti-Semitism. It then executes this ambition, however, by proposing a blanket ban on such bodies taking any moral or political considerations into account in procurement and investment decisions with regard to all states. Then it backtracks and exempts Russia and Belarus from this ban, and then it provides the possibility of exception for other countries to be decided at the discretion of Ministers—but it rules out Israel and the post-1967 Occupied Territories from being included in further exemptions. This is taking legislative convolution to a new level: a multi-tiered sledgehammer that does not even crack the nut. Sadly, however, the Bill’s clunky complexity is its least objectionable feature, because with each clunky step of justification it tramples on more and more rights and freedoms.
First, the Bill straightforwardly erodes precious civil rights to freedom of expression, freedom to campaign and freedom to boycott, which are almost universally recognised by NGOs—including, by the way, by leaders of four Jewish youth groups, the Union of Jewish Students and other Jewish groups. The first tier of this restriction is restricting the right to boycott. This right is not only important in the history of British political campaigns, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, eloquently remembered and as the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, testified to. It is a protected form of speech and protest in international law, protected by the ECHR in the Baldassi ruling, and it is protected speech under Article 19(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
However, the cavalier approach to international law does not stop there because, extraordinarily, the Bill aims to prohibit decision-makers in public bodies from telling us what they would have done if these restrictions were not in force. As the former Conservative Minister Kit Malthouse said in another place during the Bill’s progress there:
“I have never before seen legislation that outlaws disagreement with the law”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/23; col. 619.]
If the Bill ever becomes law, I have no doubt that the compatibility of this principle with Article 10 of the ECHR will be tested very early in the courts—that is, if time can be found to hear the case alongside the litany of other litigation which the Bill will generate.
However, the trampling of rights does not even stop there. As many commented during the passage of the Bill in another place, it undermines the expression of solidarity with groups which are experiencing systematic abuse, persecution and even torture elsewhere, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, observed; for example, in the case of China with regard to the Uighurs, or Myanmar with regard to the Rohingya.
Further, the partial exemption of certain types of foreign state activity from the list of banned considerations in investment decisions has the effect of generating a new and totally bizarre two-tiered categorisation of human rights. Exception is provided to allow labour rights to be taken into consideration but not torture; bribery, yes, but not genocide. This bizarre legislative edifice is constructing almost by accident a new UK stance on different kinds of human rights abuses that it is appropriate to react to in different ways. It will undermine our credibility, our consistency and our international standing.
What of the principle of a list of countries excluded by law from ministerial discretion to be designated as exempt from these restrictions? The list consists, as other noble Lords have said, only of Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the occupied Golan Heights. This contradicts not only UN Resolution 2334 but the Government’s own policy towards occupied territories. Its logic is also self-defeating because, prompted by an objection to singling out Israel, it takes steps to single out Israel. As the Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland remarked:
“What is a favourite refrain of the antisemites? That Israel is the one country you’re not ‘allowed’ to criticise. This bill takes a canard and, in the case of boycotts, turns it into the law of the land”.
More generally, our foreign policy will suffer if we embrace the principle in the Bill that the acceptability of actions by other states is not a function of the content of the actions but of whether a state is on a Minister’s list.
On top of these principled concerns, I have a host of more detailed concerns that I hope will be explored in Committee. First, the enforceability of this regime must be seriously in doubt. It relies fundamentally on clarity about, and between, different types of motivation for investment decisions. But distinguishing between these motivations is often far from easy. Areas of the world that are politically volatile also bring with them commercial volatility, disrupted supply chains and nervous investors. In those circumstances, what counts as proper fiduciary responsibility in decision-making and what counts as undue political motivation?
Secondly, I have a set of concerns about education. I will not repeat them because my noble friend Lady Chapman and the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, eloquently described them. However, we will need clarity about whether or not research partnerships, scholarships and other form of financial relationships that UK universities are involved in with institutions abroad are covered by the term “investment”.
Thirdly, the application of the Bill to the Local Government Pension Scheme is a minefield, as my noble friend Lady Young mentioned earlier—in particular in giving the Pensions Regulator a role in supervising good governance, which it has never had previously, with regard to investment decisions. I would like to hear more from the Minister about the steps to ensure that that new competence will be adequately delivered.
In sum, the Bill creates precedents that undermine freedom of expression and the freedom to campaign. It unintentionally creates a new hierarchy within human rights, undermines the integrity of our foreign policy, and shows a cavalier disregard for rights at home and for international law. It is quite a list. It should never see the light of day, but I am a realist and I realise that what will happen is that it will need profound revision so as not to damage the very freedoms it wrongly claims to protect.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the Jewish community, as required in the register. It is sad to have to start by deploring the name of the Bill. “Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters)” does not trip easily off the tongue. It is in fact known as the “anti-BDS Bill”. But does it actually help in combating Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions—a campaign I deplore as, in practice, it targets one nation: Israel?
We have this poorly drafted and politically motivated Bill purely so that Mr Gove can show that he supports the UK Jewish community, beleaguered as it is—and it is—by anti-Semitism. He can try to dress it up with talk of other nations being discussed at local levels, but if one googles “BDS” one sees that the
“movement works to end international support for Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and pressure Israel to comply with international law”.
I stress that these are its words, not mine. The Bill implicitly recognises who it is meant to defend, as it specifically singles out as the only nation an exemption of powers cannot be applied to as
“Israel … the Occupied Palestinian Territories, or … the Occupied Golan Heights”.
I am against BDS, which is often perceived as being—and I believe often is—anti-Semitic, and often a part of Jew hatred. Others perceive BDS as simply supporting the rights of Palestinians. We are a democracy and if an individual, or groups of individuals, want to support BDS, that is their right. The Bill seeks to stop public bodies—and we have had much discussion of what is and is not a public body—imposing their approach to, or view on, international relations.
I am concerned that the Bill, as drafted, could have a negative effect. Would there be a strong backlash to the Bill as being a freedom of speech issue? It is a freedom of speech issue. Is there a fear that it could lead to a rise in anti-Semitism as being seen, incorrectly, as a result of Jewish pressure, when it is not?
The Bill gives government the power to exempt certain countries from boycott restrictions, but it specifically does not allow the exemption of Israel, the West Bank and the Golan. Why are these the only named territories? It is not as simplistic as suggested. I was on the Golan Heights the week after they were taken from Syria to stop Syria shelling the Israeli valley below. Yes, Israel has annexed the Golan, and if you stand on that spot you can see why. There is no way it could ever be returned to Assad’s Syria. As far as the West Bank is concerned, its final status and division between Israel and the Palestinians is a matter for them to agree on.
When the Minister replies, it would be helpful if she could clarify the scope of BDS. Does it include Israel? Does it include the major Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the Golan? These settlements are generally thought of as a land swap—settlements that would be in a reconstituted, rebounded Israel. Does it include them, or all the settlements of the West Bank?
We have this Bill because some public bodies have proposed BDS motions. The Minister mentioned three when she spoke; could she tell the House how many public bodies, local authorities or whatever have actually done so? The reality is that these motions will do little to affect Israel or any other nation. However, they create a very hostile environment for local Jewish communities and create community division.
There is an argument that this Bill limits free speech, but the BDS campaign itself calls for limits on freedom of speech, preventing speeches by Israeli academics and Israeli performers, as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, mentioned. That is not mentioned anywhere in the Bill, as he said.
This is a bad Bill, which attempts to right a misjustice but could well have unseen, harmful consequences. The Local Government Association, which obviously has an interest in this, says that it does not expect the Bill to have significant effects on local authority investment or procurement practices, but it has significant concerns about the effects it will have on the operation of local government pension schemes.
I imagine that the Bill will get to Committee and beyond. We are only at Second Reading. I believe that we will see amendments. It will be very interesting to see what the amendments will be and, if they are passed by your Lordships’ House, what the reaction will be in the other place. My own judgment will depend on the final version in your Lordships’ House, as I am in favour of free speech but against the BDS movement.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this Bill. The Government are right to legislate to stop public bodies engaging in boycotts of foreign countries or making equivalent investment decisions. It was a manifesto commitment in 2019 and I hope the Benches opposite will remember that as the Bill progresses. I am only sorry that it has taken over four years to get within sight of the statute book.
The BDS movement is Palestinian-led and explicitly aimed at Israel. It wants to weaken the State of Israel using economic weapons, but we should be in no doubt that it is part of a wider movement that denies Israel’s right to exist. The Palestinian BDS National Committee is interlinked with proscribed terrorist organisations, including Hamas. We saw on 7 October last year what that murderous organisation is capable of, and its leaders have been clear that Hamas is committed to replicating attacks like that until Israel is completely eradicated.
The BDS movement portrays itself as peaceful, but we should be in no doubt that BDS and Hamas draw from the same well. The BDS movement at its core is anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitism nowadays wears the clothes of being anti-Israel, but it is little different from the anti-Semitism that Jews have suffered down the ages. That is why it is so dangerous and why the Government are right to target it in this Bill. Our studies have shown links between BDS activities and acts of anti-Semitism. Sadly, anti-Semitic incidents have been rising in the UK since the events of 7 October. My noble friend the Minister reminded us of that. Noble Lords have spoken in your Lordships’ House in the past of how many in the Jewish community now are afraid in a way that they have not been in recent memory. This is a particular problem on campuses.
This Bill is a modest but important contribution to reducing the impact that the BDS movement can have on life in our society. It does not outlaw the BDS movement in the UK and it does not stop individuals or private companies exercising their rights not to deal with or invest in Israel. Companies such as Ben & Jerry’s can carry on trying to stop their products being available in Israel and people like me can carry on boycotting Ben & Jerry’s in return. The Bill confines itself to public authorities and is thus a proportionate response to a very real issue.
It is clear and settled policy that the British Government recognise and support the State of Israel. I am proud that we have stood by Israel in its recent actions to defend itself. It cannot be right that public bodies, funded by UK taxpayers’ money, should try to pursue a different foreign policy. Because foreign policy is a reserved matter, it is also right that this Bill extends to the devolved nations. Procurement may well be a devolved matter, but procurement does not exist in a vacuum and has to be set in the context of broader policies set by the Government—including their foreign policy.
I am a committed defender of freedom of speech. Concerns have been raised about Clause 4 and we have heard quite a lot about that this afternoon. I do not believe that fears about this clause are well founded, since the prohibition relates only to public bodies or persons speaking on behalf of public bodies. Even then, it applies only to statements about the contravention of Clause 1. It does not prohibit the expression of more general views and does not apply to statements made by individuals speaking in a personal capacity. I am sure that we can explore this in Committee, but the drafting is already pretty clear.
As we have heard, there are also concerns about Clause 3(7), which hardwires Israel and the Occupied Territories into the Bill. I support this because it is always Israel that is the target of BDS activities and this Bill needs to send a strong message about the unacceptability of that. I know that this raises difficult issues about the Occupied Territories and I am sure that these can be discussed further in Committee.
Another issue for Committee is paragraph 6 of the Schedule. This was described as “constitutionally unique” in evidence sessions in the other place. I was interested in particular in the remarks by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, on that subject and look forward to exploring it in Committee.
I hope that we can work at speed to get this Bill through to Royal Assent, because it has never been more important to ensure that anti-Semitism cannot take root in the activities of our public sector.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I feel proud, honoured and thankful to have been present in your Lordships’ Chamber to hear the powerful and informed speeches from my noble friends Lord Boateng and Lord Hain, and the powerful and forensic speeches from my noble friends Lady Chapman of Darlington and Lord Wood of Anfield.
I intend to devote my limited time to drawing your Lordships’ attention to a few specific provisions in the Bill and arguments about them, in opposition to it. I start by drawing your Lordships’ attention to remarks that were made at the Second Reading of the Bill in the other place. In rebutting the critics of the Bill, Michael Gove suggested—and this was deliberately calculated—that the central question for every Member of that Chamber was
“whether they stand with us against antisemitism or not”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/23; col. 591.]
This is not merely a false dichotomy but an extremely irresponsible piece of rhetorical manoeuvring. I am not surprised by it. By implication, it condemns opponents or even critical friends of the Bill as anti-Semitic. It seems ironic, to say the least, that in moving legislation purportedly designed to ease community and cultural divisions in this country, the Secretary of State chose to frame the debate in such inflammatory terms. For my part, I know not only that every Member of your Lordships’ House abhors anti-Semitism but that we are all conscious of the very specific and insidious ways in which it can creep into public discourse. We will do everything that we can to prevent that.
We were also told during those proceedings—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, for drawing our attention to this—that the Bill fulfils a 2019 manifesto commitment. Leaving aside the question of how far the writ of that manifesto can seriously be expected to extend, given that it was the product of neither this Prime Minister nor his immediate predecessor, it is worth looking at, as was encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, how that commitment was framed and to what extent the Bill we are considering today reflects it.
The noble Lord read out the relevant passages, so I will not repeat them, but there are a number of aspects that are interesting in relation to the Bill. For example, there is no manifesto commitment to legislation that singles out protection of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This is anomalous for three reasons. First, I fear that singling out Israel and the OPT in such a way is counterproductive. If I seriously believed that the actions of local authorities or other public bodies were compromising the coherence of British foreign policy—and sometimes I beg for the coherence of British foreign policy—I would have greater sympathy for this Bill.
With this in mind, I would be grateful if the Minister, whom I respect immensely, and she knows this, would outline a few cases that support that contention—where international perceptions of our foreign policy have been distorted or compromised, or where local authorities or other public bodies have acted in a way that courts serious confusion at an international level because of behaviour that is identified in the Bill. There must be data to support legislation that has such implications for the way in which we live. We have to justify the sweeping powers contained in the Bill, and this data must be shown to us before the conclusion of our deliberations on it.
Secondly, the more extreme elements of the BDS movement argue that Israel is too often held unjustifiably exempt from criticism and that the actions of the Israeli Government do not receive appropriate scrutiny. Surely by naming only Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the Bill we will not defang those who make such criticisms but give them further ammunition for such assertions. This is of particular importance to Clauses 1 and 4.
Clause 1 prohibits action that a “reasonable observer” would conclude is motivated by “political or moral disapproval” of a foreign Government. It strikes me that the words “reasonable observer” are doing a great deal of heavy lifting here and that we are merely opening ourselves up to legal challenges based on contending subjectivities. Given the historical complexity, emotional depth and diplomatic ambiguity that attend any discussion of Israel, Palestine and their relationship, who is to decide what constitutes the position of a disinterested, reasonable observer? The last couple of years have shown me that, on this issue, in this country, there is no such thing.
Of even greater concern is Clause 4. As we have heard from other noble Lords, this provision does not merely debar a public body from expressing its intention to act in a contrary manner to this Bill but in addition—God forbid—prevents them expressing how they might wish to have acted were the legislation not in force. I should be grateful if the Minister would be kind enough to present even a hypothetical case for where this provision may prevent serious harm to the coherence of UK foreign policy. In asking that, I do not contend that we have not seen cases where councils have made declarations supporting anti-Israel boycotts that they had no intention of implementing but that were none the less opposed by local Jewish groups. But I do not believe that these cases, however regrettable and ill-conceived, justify such sweeping measures to curtail free speech, nor that they in any serious manner compromise the wider unity and coherence of our foreign policy. It must be pretty fragile if they do.
A final anomaly to mention is a further consequence of Clause 4. In what circumstances is a decision-maker, or one who may influence a decision-maker, under the terms of this Bill speaking in a private capacity or as part of a public body? If the leader of a council spoke in the council chamber expressing their disapproval of Israeli actions but prefaced these remarks with an acknowledgement that such views were privately held and siloed from decision-making, would this exempt them from these provisions? Answering in the other place, the Minister sought to square this circle by saying that
“the simplest way to express that is that if an individual is speaking on their own behalf, they are speaking as a private individual. However, if I say that I am speaking on behalf of my university or my local authority, then I speak on the behalf of a public body”.—[Official Report, Commons, Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill Committee, 12/9/23; cols. 155-56.]
While that clarification was no doubt tremendously insightful, I am sceptical that such a simplistic definition would survive contact with reality, never mind the courts. For these reasons, I believe that Clause 4 should simply be removed from the Bill.
Talking about contact with reality, noble Lords heard, in the opening sentences of his introducing the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, or the Advocate-General for Scotland, say:
“I am speaking to the House today as a member of the Government for the Bill, not in my formal law officer capacity”.—[Official Report, 29/1/24; col. 1003]
The man is only in the Government because he is a law officer. The Advocate-General for Scotland position had to be filled, and he came from the Scottish Bar to fill it. He is only in the Government as a law officer. If noble Lords want to see the degree to which that survived reality, they can look at the rest of the debate and at how confused everybody in this House was by those remarks from the noble and learned Lord as to who he was talking for.
This Bill may be well-intentioned—I am sceptical about that—but it contains sufficient ambiguities and contradictions to risk deepening existing fractures and creating new contentions in relation to freedom of speech. For those reasons I will be seeking, at the very least, to support critical amendments as it moves through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, this has been a wonderful debate, but the advisory speaking time is seven minutes. I am looking forward to seeing all noble Lords again in Committee, so please try to keep to seven minutes. Some of your Lordships were up at midnight, so we are hoping for a reasonable finish.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am broadly supportive of this Bill, but I have a number of concerns.
First, I share the concern expressed by other noble Lords that Clause 4 as currently drafted might have a disproportionate impact on freedom of expression, and in particular on political and academic speech. I understand the reassurances found in the Explanatory Notes—we heard to that effect from the Minister earlier —but it seems to me that principles as important as those need to be protected in the Bill rather than in the Explanatory Notes. I look forward to ways of improving the clarity of the terms of Clause 4, in particular.
Secondly, I am concerned about the impact of the Bill on universities. I declare an interest, in that I am a professor at King’s College London. I echo the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, expressed on universities. At the heart of the Bill is a new duty to
“not have regard to a territorial consideration”
in a manner that would indicate
“political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct”.
As Universities UK noted in its written evidence, universities, in their relationships with overseas higher education institutions, as well as with foreign businesses and states, are already subject to a number of duties, particularly with regard to national security, that require them to take into account foreign state conduct. We have to be sure that the new duty in the Bill does not create confusion around these other duties which are intended to protect universities and our country from the influence of unfriendly foreign actors, not least actors such as Iran, which are keen to set foot in our universities, radicalise students and propagate anti-Semitism.
My third concern mirrors the point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton and goes to paragraph 6 of the Schedule. There was some discussion in the other place about the legal opinion on the legislation by Mr Hermer KC, which was mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Hain. In that opinion, he identified the problem with paragraph 6 as clearly as anyone until, of course, my noble and learned friend spoke. He wrote:
“The fact that the United Kingdom is in breach of its obligations under an unincorporated international treaty (e.g. the UN Charter) does not normally create a foundation for a claim in domestic law before the UK Courts. Here though the Bill provides a ‘domestic foothold’ through paragraph 6 of the Schedule”.
He observes, rightly, that domestic courts are normally reluctant to review the conduct of foreign states, but the Bill would oblige them to tackle the issues because they will have to do so to determine the legality of the impugned decision. I agree with his conclusion that, paradoxically, paragraph 6
“will very materially increase the prospects of a domestic court pronouncing on the legality of various aspects of the occupation”.
He is, of course, referring to the Occupied Palestinian Territories in Israel, but the Bill goes much further than that. It would apply to any foreign situation where there is a territorial consideration. It would apply to Western Sahara, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and maritime disputes. In fact, it would apply simply to any question of foreign policy in relation to a territory because of the breadth of the definition of “territorial consideration” in Clause 1.
It is true that we do not normally implement international obligations in this open-ended way. We normally have primary and sometimes secondary legislation that is designed to ensure that the UK state, including its various organs, both local and central government, is acting consistently with international obligations. Paragraph 6 operates fundamentally differently. The effect is to create a sort of open invitation to any public authority to pick an argument with the Government of the day on a potentially wide range of foreign policy issues. If that happens, if a public authority invokes the international law exception, the Government will then have to decide either to do nothing, in which case they will be left with more of a problem than the Bill is designed to solve, or to pursue enforcement, in which case the question will be submitted to the courts with all the risks of litigation of issues that otherwise would not be submitted to judicial determination that come with that.
There is an evident tension between the stated purpose of the Bill, which is to make sure that the Government are in greater control of foreign policy, and what could happen as a result of paragraph 6 in the Schedule. At a minimum, this provision will need a lot of tightening, but I really wonder why it is there. The guidance on procurement, which has been in place since the 2016, simply states that unless the Government have put in place formal legal sanctions, embargoes or restrictions, there should be no scope for a regime of trade sanctions or embargoes to be developed surreptitiously through public procurement. I am not sure what has changed since then that has led to the introduction of paragraph 6.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, from time to time, bad Bills are introduced, and they have become more frequent over the past 10 years, but in my many years in this House I have not witnessed any worse than this one. It denies the principles of an open society in which freedom of expression is valued and in which ethical considerations are deemed to be valid in decision-making by public bodies. It is shameful in its failure to reflect international law and UK legislation on freedom of expression, and it pays no attention to the position taken in the devolved Governments by Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It also cuts across the established UK position of differentiating between the State of Israel and the territories it occupies, now blighted by large numbers of settlements illegal under international law.
I do not understand how the interdepartmental discussion required by proposed legislation which has implications for several departments could have allowed this shoddy and appallingly drafted little Bill to go through. Either the discussion did not take place or there was a lack of rigour when the Bill was considered. Was any account taken of the fact that many voters in this country have justified concerns about illegal or unethical practices in the environment and in human rights, including employment rights?
As a former vice-chancellor, I would like the Minister to respond to the damaging effects of this Bill on universities, which have been touched on by others. First, how does it affect the ONS review of university status in the national accounts and whether they should be reclassified as public bodies? Is the Minister aware that government policy and, indeed, legislation establishing international partnerships and collaborations is contradicted by the Bill, as are the duties of universities under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 to uphold freedom of speech? Universities UK is justifiably concerned about the legislation’s potentially damaging effect on due diligence and open discussion and debate, limiting transparency in decision-making. Only in totalitarian countries is universities’ freedom of expression restricted.
This Bill is overbearing in its treatment of local authorities and exposes them to vexatious legal challenges. It entails disproportionate centralisation, giving more power to the Secretary of State, which could hold up local decision-making, resulting in delay and inefficiency. It is not up to the Secretary of State to denounce elected representatives for debating ethical issues or to interfere in their decisions on investment and procurement. That is gagging and ministerial overreach. It will create unnecessary conflict between devolved or local government and Ministers.
A particular issue in the Bill is its effect on the Local Government Pension Scheme. Under present law, pension funds are required to take into account financially material environmental, social and governance considerations. By outlawing funds taking into account country-specific financial risks, the Bill is in conflict with the Law Commission’s guidance on the fiduciary duties of pension funds. It also undermines the work done by the Local Government Pension Scheme to improve corporate behaviour and protect the long-term value of funds and conflicts with the Procurement Act. Will the Minister tell the House why public bodies and their pension funds should not take into account ethical considerations such as the use of tax havens, child labour, bonded labour, torture or environmental devastation, which are facilitated or permitted in certain territories, when they make their investment and procurement decisions?
I turn to the extraordinary singling out of Israel and the Occupied Territories, giving them unique protection from campaigns against human rights abuses afforded to no other country. In conflating Israel and the Occupied Territories, the Bill conflicts with the UN Security Council resolutions which the UK has endorsed. As such, it is also in conflict with UK foreign policy and its stated aim to promote a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, it is illegal for an occupying power to transfer any part of its population to occupied territory. Successive Israeli Governments have frequently and fragrantly ignored this convention by allowing settlements on territory designated for a future Palestinian state. Perhaps unintentionally, the Bill implies that the UK no longer accepts that the settlements are illegal under international law nor that they are involved in human rights abuses of West Bank Palestinians.
I end by expressing my bewilderment about how this Bill will reduce anti-Semitism and refer the Minister to a passionate campaigner against anti-Semitism, Margaret Hodge MP. At Second Reading in another place, she said that an outcome of the Bill was that it would increase, rather than reduce, anti-Semitism because it plays into the hands of anti-Semites by singling out Israel
“as the one place that can never be boycotted”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/23; col. 615.]
This Bill really needs to be withdrawn altogether but, failing that, it needs extensive amendment. In the spirit of a revising House, I hope that the Minister will, as she implied earlier, accept that it must be amended substantially to improve it.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the Bill to which this House is being asked to give a Second Reading today is, in my view, both ill-timed and ill-conceived. It singles out Israel for special protection over any other country in the world in a remarkably discriminatory way—positive for Israel, negative for everywhere else—which, important though the preservation of Israel’s security and democracy undoubtedly is, can hardly be justified. Is it really that much more important to us than the countries of the Commonwealth?
The Bill is ill-timed in the sense that, while many will assert and defend Israel’s right to act militarily in self-defence in response to the onslaught unleashed against it by Hamas on 7 October, as does the present speaker, this is hardly the appropriate moment to bring forward a piece of legislation which appears to give Israel a blank cheque for whatever it does in Gaza and the other Occupied Territories.
It is ill-conceived because it would appear also to override some of the formal international positions taken by successive British Governments with respect to the West Bank and the settlements established there, to the Golan Heights and to east Jerusalem. Can the Minister confirm whether it remains the Government’s position, as set out in paragraph 5 of UN Security Council Resolution 2334, for which the UK voted, that the status of these territories can be determined only by international negotiations and agreement between the parties to the dispute between Israel and Palestine—and not, as is the view of the present Israeli Government, by the unilateral action of Israel—and that those settlements are illegal and that the assertion of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and east Jerusalem has no basis in international law? If so, and given that that view is shared by the vast majority of the members of the UN, why is that distinction not recognised in the present Bill? Why, indeed, is it not recognised as being an obligation on public bodies in this country, just as they are not permitted—rightly, in the view of the present speaker—to try to impose their own trade sanctions on Israel?
Let us reflect for a moment on where we would have stood in the early 1990s with respect to investments in apartheid South Africa, had a Bill of the sort proposed been on the statute book. I listened with great interest to the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, to that issue. Do we really wish to tie the hands of public bodies in matters of investment, should such breaches of customary international law occur in the future?
The objections I have referred to relate to the international dimensions of this Bill, which seem far-reaching and undeniable. How do they respect the Government’s championing of the rules-based international order, of which the provisions relating to the status of the territories concerned are surely an integral part?
Other considerations, referred to by other noble Lords, such as whether it makes any sense to deprive public bodies of powers they would appear to possess, are matters for others with more expertise than me on such aspects of the legislation. The negative implications for the autonomy and freedom of speech of universities has been referred to by noble Lords and must be a matter of real concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, did us a favour by reading out the relevant passage from his party’s 2019 manifesto. The Salisbury/Addison convention is highly relevant to the Bill. There is no mention in the manifesto of Israel, and no mention of universities, which are not public bodies. This will be relevant as we look, as I believe we should, to produce some fairly radical amendments to the Bill in order to avoid setting off in quite the wrong direction.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, we live in a globalised world of goods and services where capital seeks the cheapest raw material and the cheapest labour. If—and I hope it still is “if”—Port Talbot steelworks closes, 3,000 men and women in South Wales will lose their jobs. But the needs of Britain for the same consumption of steel will continue; it is simply that 3,000 workers somewhere else in the world, probably on cheaper wages and with worse conditions, less health and safety protection and fewer trade union rights, will produce that steel.
There is no way to equalise wages in our global supply chains, of course, but conditions—minimum conditions, at least—can be equalised. We have the legal tools to do that through international labour standards. I refer to the International Labour Organization’s 1944 Declaration of Philadelphia, and its 2008 Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalisation. Of course, I refer also to the fundamental ILO conventions, which this country was one of the first to ratify: Convention 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise; Convention 98 on the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining; Convention 100 on Equal Remuneration; convention 111 on discrimination; Convention 155 on Occupational Safety and Health; and Convention 187 on the Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health.
The UK ratified them all and was happy to reaffirm them in the Brexit trade deal: the trade and co-operation agreement. Democracy requires that these standards be enforced to defend the conditions of workers both here and abroad. All persons and bodies buying goods and services on the global market should be entitled to take into account adherence to international labour standards. I object to the deprivation of the power of devolved Governments and public bodies—and, indeed, private bodies with public functions—to select their providers of goods and services on the basis of, among other things, conformity to these international laws.
Paragraph 6 of Part 2 of the Schedule, about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, have spoken, is insufficient protection. So is paragraph 8. They are so narrowly drawn for these purposes that that they fail effectively to exempt such requirements of conformity to international labour standards. Paragraph 6 permits exemption only for conduct that places the UK in breach of its international law obligations. My concern, however, is breaches of international law by Governments in the supply chains to the United Kingdom. Paragraph 8 applies only to conduct that would amount to a criminal offence in relation to slavery, trafficking orders and labour market orders under the Immigration Act. It does not protect against infractions of the right to health and safety at work, the right to strike, the right to bargain collectively, the right to organise and so on.
I learn from the TUC briefing that the International Trade Union Confederation’s Global Rights Index has ascertained that breaches of workers’ rights reached record highs in 2023. It lists Bangladesh, Belarus, Ecuador, Egypt, Eswatini, Guatemala, Myanmar, Tunisia, the Philippines and Turkey as the 10 worst countries for working people, with 73% of the countries surveyed impeding the registration of unions or banning them, including Belarus, Central African Republic and Guatemala, while 80% of the countries surveyed violated the right to strike. Why should public bodies not take such matters into consideration?
As many noble Lords have said, there are exemptions in Clause 3(7) for Israel and the Occupied Territories. Considering Israel’s many breaches of international law in relation to its conduct, including that in Gaza now, what justification can there be for excusing that state from all breaches of international labour standards in so far as public bodies must not take them into account?
I would like the Minister’s help in explaining why international labour standards that are binding on the UK and all nations of the world should not be an appropriate factor for decisions on procurement by public bodies, and why a state that bans trade unions or strikes and imposes penalties on those who participate in them should not be subject to a decision by a public body that it will not buy goods or services from it. I hope the Minister will say she will accept an amendment to allow such matters to be taken into consideration.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, I understand the good intentions behind the Bill but I have some doubt that this is the best way to realise them. I hope I will be brief as my good friend, my noble friend Lord Willetts, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, have already made many of the points that I wanted to make, focusing mainly on universities and the world of higher education. I declare my interests as a visiting professor at King’s College London and as chairman of FutureLearn, a digital learning platform.
I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some clarification on three issues. Two of them have been touched on so I will briefly skate over them. The first is the question of the ONS review of the status of universities in the public accounts. This is really not a trivial matter should they be reclassified as part of the public sector. It is important for us to understand, as the Bill makes its way through the House, what assessment the Government have made of the impact on universities’ financial freedoms, including over borrowing and investment, should such a reclassification take place.
The second area on which I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some clarity is the scope of the Bill in relation to how it is going to define a higher education provider. At several points, reference has been made to universities. Universities are of course relatively few in number; there are about 124 of them on the OfS register, along with a further 360-odd higher education institutions that do not have a university title, but beyond that there is a much larger universe of higher education institutions that are not on the register. I wonder what the Government’s intentions are in respect of students studying at those institutions and whether they will be in scope of this legislation.
The third point about which it would be helpful to understand a bit more has been touched on by several noble Lords: the freedom of speech duties that have been strengthened in various bits of legislation over recent years and how those duties will be exercised. In particular, what role will there be for the director for free speech within the Office for Students?
I opened by saying that I did not think this was perhaps the best way of realising the Government’s good intentions. There is possibly a better way, specifically with regard to universities, and that is to focus on developing the positive announcement that the Government made in the Autumn Statement that they would fund training and education relating to anti-Semitism in schools and universities, and to address the problem of anti-Semitism up stream. There are excellent organisations that provide training, including the Holocaust Educational Trust, which could much better be deployed in the cause of addressing the root cause of anti-Semitism in our universities than this legislation. I therefore ask the Government to reflect carefully on whether universities, which by and large are autonomous private organisations, really need to be in the Bill at all.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
My Lords, over the past few years we have seen many Bills in this House that show a worrying disregard for humanity, but as far as I know this is the first that actually instructs public bodies to disregard morality. The Government state that they want to stop public bodies pursuing their own foreign policy. Most public bodies have no desire for a foreign policy but may find that some countries fall short of the ethical or moral standards that the public body holds as an essential requirement for any business relationship.
As of two weeks ago, the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights listed 110 ongoing armed conflicts, and that figure has probably increased since then. I hope that any public body would take account of whether its investment or procurement contributed to the ability of countries to act aggressively against others or to suppress their own populations.
The right of women and girls to live in safety is not protected in many countries, and any UK public body that is uncritical of an offending Government should be ashamed of itself. Some Governments are failing to protect children from exploitation by global companies. Most of us would expect public bodies not to procure goods made in those conditions.
Protecting the environment and workers’ rights should also be important in making decisions. However, financial consultants are warning that even the apparent exceptions may not protect public bodies from being challenged, leading to possibly lengthy legal proceedings.
The Quakers powerfully point out that:
“While the British government has said it will immediately exempt Russia and Belarus from the legislation, it has made no such commitment to exempt other countries that are known to be committing human rights abuses … This Bill gives the government the power to control which”
violations of international law
“public bodies can protest and which ones they must keep silent about. We contend that public bodies should have the freedom to shed light on abuses around the world, even (perhaps especially) areas where the national government would rather avoid scrutiny”.
Ultimately, the Bill acts as a way of gagging public bodies, including elected bodies, stopping them publicly expressing what they believe is in the best interests of those they represent. To prohibit the publication of statements from public bodies indicating that they would act against offending countries if it were lawful to do so has to be one of the worst attacks on freedom of speech.
This means that, if electors approach their local authority or pensioners approach their pension scheme to ask why they are investing in a country that oppresses its own citizens, or which is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths of women and children in an occupied country, they are prohibited from saying that they would have liked to boycott the culprit country but government legislation makes that illegal.
Paragraph 33 of the Explanatory Notes gets us into further confusion when it states:
“For example, councillors of a local authority are not a public authority and, therefore, are not prohibited from expressing support for or voting in favour of a motion supporting a boycott or divestment policy.”
The Minister’s explanation supports my understanding that, if a local council adopted a motion supporting such a policy, the “public authority” would have to refuse to implement it. Does the Minister accept that this is a form of doublethink, and can she help us out by clarifying this point?
The Bill, like many others over the past few years, seeks to grab power from other national and regional Governments. It acts to ensure that there is only one centralised power: the Executive, acting in the name of parliamentary sovereignty and imposing their will, without reference to other elected bodies across the UK. If I had time, I would refer to the proud record of Glasgow, as referenced by my noble friend Lord Hain, in supporting oppressed people in other countries, often in opposition to the views of a Conservative Government. The Scottish Government will, if able, withhold legislative consent—and should have that right. They have also raised important concerns about the use of delegatory powers built into the Bill, which I hope we will be exploring at later stages.
Finally, the Bill is clearly discriminatory, as has been expressed by many noble Lords, in giving a uniquely high level of protection from political and moral disapproval to one state above all others in the world. The written evidence from Jews for Justice for Palestinians, submitted in August 2023, points out that it is not the actual boycott and disinvestment advocacy that leads to “increases in antisemitic incidents” but rather
“spikes of violence in Israel and Palestine, particularly with … major Israeli … attacks on Palestinian areas”.
That is where the spikes are shown to come from, as stated in August last year. Can the Minister answer the concerns of my noble friend Lady Chapman of Darlington that the Bill is not an effective challenge to anti-Semitism and cannot justify why Israel should be given unique status under the Bill, while every other state in the world can be added and removed by delegatory powers?
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I expect that the name of Field-Marshal Julius Jakob Freiherr von Haynau does not elicit the sort of interest that once it did in your Lordships’ House. He was, none the less, a staple of O-level history when that subject would have elicited the admiration of the Secretary of State for Levelling Up. Field Marshall von Haynau was an effective but severe Habsburg military commander during the revolutionary years of 1848 and 1849. His imperial standing, however, did not prevent him being chased down Borough High Street in my diocese in 1850—where my diocesan headquarters now is, very near the cathedral—by two draymen from the nearby brewery of Barclay Perkins to remonstrate with him about his military conduct in Italy and Hungary.
I mention this once-famous incident to illustrate that there have always been strong currents of feelings about issues, including those abroad. Some of these fall into what one might call the dissenting tradition. As a Church of England Bishop, I recognise that I am an heir to a different tradition, but surely our history has taught us that consensus has been built up around what is obviously true and lived out with integrity, rather than by suppression.
There is a royal prerogative in foreign affairs, as there is around peace and war. His Majesty’s Government treat with states and, where necessary, apply sanctions, but not all and every entity is derivative of the Executive. Surely if Edmund Burke has taught governing parties anything, he has taught them that few, if any, of these things should be taken into account in ways which are harmful to the nation.
As the Government’s own impact assessment on the Bill demonstrates, we address business other than that which is directly before us. It is for bodies which have a mandate separate from His Majesty’s Government to determine how, within the law, we obtain the best outcome with the assets we have, and to do so while being accountable to the people we serve. For example, Section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988 already prohibits local authorities from making procurement decisions on non-commercial grounds.
I recall from when I served on the staff of St Paul’s Cathedral, and later as a parish priest in Tower Hamlets, the declarations of the nearby borough that it was a nuclear-free Hackney. I am not sure what that achieved but it was a matter for them. More significant is that some of the action in respect of apartheid South Africa would not, as we have heard, have been possible had such a Bill been in force then. There was, let us remember, sharp controversy about disinvestment in South Africa, but it was at the level of argument, not statutory prohibition.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who hopes to be present for later stages of the Bill, has raised with me a concern which I think has merit: that public funding means that a number of religious foundations in education will be caught by the prohibition on saying anything about these matters. Perhaps the Minister would be prepared to confirm that this is not the intention of the Bill and, if so, what can be done to mitigate the possibility.
From these Benches, we have not called for a boycott or disinvestment, or sanctions against Israel, but we find a number of things alarming in the implications for our liberties and freedoms. One is blanket prohibitions about statements, even on matters such as Uighurs in China. One may argue that the Secretary of State may permit such things, but why should this require the permission of the Secretary of State? The other is that there can be no justification for singling out a particular country in the Bill, as many noble Lords have already said, to put it beyond exception in the regulation-making power in the operation of any resulting statute. It is also deeply worrying that territory illegally occupied by the same state is treated identically in the Bill, as if it is the sovereign territory of that state. This is not in accordance with the repeated statements from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on the need for lasting peace on the basis of a just, negotiated settlement.
I endorse what the Minister said about the need to eradicate anti-Semitism, but have the Government heard the concerns of bona fide Jewish bodies? For instance, a motion passed unanimously at the recent conference of the Union of Jewish Students, which represents 9,000 Jewish students, stated that
“the UK government’s recently proposed BDS Sanctions Bill weakens the ability of British Jewish students to approach the conversation about Israel in a nuanced manner”.
The motion went on:
“UJS reaffirms its support for the democratic right to non-violently protest and opposes the government’s proposed Boycott Bill which is a curtailment of that right, as well as presenting a risk to British Jewish communities and a setback to Israeli-Palestinian peace”.
It seems clear that, rather than there being a concern that local authorities operate a separate foreign policy from that of His Majesty’s Government, we should query why the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is pursuing policy objectives for the Occupied Palestinian Territories that are at variance from those of the Government as a whole.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I agreed with so much of what the right reverend Prelate has just said and I apologise if I repeat some of the points he made. My remarks about the Bill will focus entirely on Clause 3(7) and specifically on the Occupied Territories. I shall argue that these provisions in the Bill are contrary to UN Security Council Resolution 2334, as mentioned earlier. I shall argue that the clause perversely gives the illegally Occupied Territories special protection under UK law. I shall also say that the clause undermines British foreign policy, both in respect of the illegality of the occupation and the pursuit of a two-state solution.
On the UN resolution, the clause fails because it gives equal status, with no differentiation between Israel on the one hand and the Occupied Palestinian Territories on the other. Resolution 2334, endorsed by Britain and passed in 2016 by 14 votes to nil, with one abstention, could not be clearer. The resolution:
“Calls upon all States … to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967”.
As my honourable friend Wayne David said, speaking for the Opposition in the Commons, the Bill
“gives special protection to goods and services from both Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Moreover, it gives greater protection to illegal settlements in the OPT than it does to any other state in the world except Israel”.—[Official Report, 12/9/23; col. 132.]
That brings me to the point about UK law. It is surely perverse in the extreme to afford special protected status to Israeli settlements that UK Governments of both parties—not to mention the UN resolution—have repeatedly stated to be part of an illegal occupation. How can the Government on the one hand condemn the continued expansion of the settlements while on the other be passing a law that has the potential to help the settlements become more established and prosperous?
Indeed, it is worse than that, because the Government’s justification for the Bill is that it is not appropriate for public authorities to impose their own boycotts and sanctions, except where to do so is positively consistent with UK foreign policy. Well, what could be more positively consistent with UK foreign policy than refusing to indulge in economic activity that might help and sustain the illegal settlements? Sadly, this Bill, by giving special status to the Occupied Territories, goes one step further towards normalising the occupation, thereby making the two-state solution, which has been the consistent policy of UK Governments of all parties for decades, even more difficult to achieve.
Even before the horrors of the war in Gaza, the political prospect of achieving a two-state solution was getting ever more problematic. In April 2017 the International Relations Committee of this House published a report on the Middle East, which had this to say:
“On its current trajectory, the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is on the verge of moving into a phase where the two-state solution becomes an impossibility and is considered no longer viable by either side. The consequences would be grave for the region … If Israel continues to reduce the possibilities of a two-state solution, the UK should be ready to support UNSC resolutions condemning those actions in no uncertain terms. The Government should give serious consideration to now recognising Palestine as a state”.
I agreed with every word of that when I was on the committee seven years ago. I believe that its prognoses and forebodings are utterly relevant today.
There is another serious impediment to the two- state solution that it would be folly to ignore. We have long been aware that the Israeli Government under Mr Netanyahu has been pursuing a policy of settlement expansion, which makes the possibility of a two-state solution much more difficult to achieve. On 21 January this year, he made this policy explicit when he confirmed that he is a total opposition to an independent Palestinian state. He said:
“I will not compromise on full Israeli security control over the entire area west of the Jordan—and that is contrary to a Palestinian state”.
What a time this is to be debating a Bill which fails to distinguish between Israel and the Occupied Territories. It gives me no pleasure at all to say that this seems to be more in line with Mr Netanyahu’s policy than it is with UK foreign policy.
That is perhaps a big part of the problem with Clause 3(7). The truth is that this Bill from the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has one clause in it that deals with a deeply sensitive part of British foreign policy. Much of my speech has unashamedly been about British foreign policy. If we are to end in law the distinction between Israel and the Occupied Territories, we surely need to hear the views of the Foreign Office.
For obvious reasons, the Foreign Secretary has been intensely involved in the Middle East since his appointment. Earlier this year he said that Britain was ready to bring forward the moment when it formally recognises a Palestinian state. He went on to say that the Palestinian people would have to be shown “irreversible progress” towards a two-state solution. The Foreign Secretary in my view is absolutely right, and that makes me wonder what the Foreign Office thinks of this clause in the Bill. I have been around long enough to know that the Minister is unlikely to reveal anything about this in her wind-up, but to present a Bill to Parliament that includes a clause with reference to one of the most dangerous and tragic parts of the world is at best insensitive and at worst very damaging. I hope that the Government, even at this stage, will think again.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark’s mention of Hackney reminded me that, some years back, when you left Parliament and crossed the bridge, you came across a sign saying, “Welcome to Lambeth—a Nuclear-Free Zone”. It appeared that the London Borough of Lambeth felt that it could set its own nuclear deterrence policy and, presumably, any inbound Soviet nuclear weapons would contour round it to Wandsworth.
That points to the intrinsic fact that defence and foreign policy are, rightly, matters for our elected national Government. I was casting my mind back to, I think, two weeks ago, to an Oral Question about the Scottish Government. Contributions from all Benches across the House were strongly critical of the suggestion that the Scottish Government in Holyrood might be usurping the Westminster Government’s exclusive competence on foreign policy. It is not clear why that argument, made a fortnight ago, is not deemed to apply today to other governmental or public bodies, in addition to the devolved Administrations.
Furthermore, although there have been legitimate concerns about aspects of the Bill, it is worth reminding ourselves that it does not stop us as private individuals, businesses or civil society organisations choosing who to buy from, who to boycott and where to invest. It contains statutory safeguards so that governmental and public authorities can take account, for example, of environmental and labour standards, including the prevention of modern slavery.
The advantage of speaking this late in the debate is that you have a chance to reflect on where the balance of opinion is across the House. It strikes me that there are probably three major points of controversy that have so far arisen. The first concerns the breadth and ambiguity around the bodies captured by the definition of a “hybrid public authority”. I think the contributions that particularly concerned universities require further deliberation as this Bill progresses. More broadly, the use of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 as the litmus test for what is and is not in scope of the Bill requires further consideration to avoid the breadth and ambiguity that many previous speakers have spoken about.
The second point of controversy is the free speech concerns, particularly as they relate to academic freedom. As I read them, the Explanatory Notes provide significant reassurance on that point. The question that we will want to test is whether the reassurances in the Explanatory Notes are sufficiently reflected in the substance of the Bill. We heard a moment ago from the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan of Partick, about the Bill requiring double- think: local authorities could pass resolutions as long as they did not act on them. My question to the Minister is: is that not in fact already the status quo? It is not the Bill that creates the problem she described.
The leading case in this area is the judicial review against Leicester City Council, initiated in 2014 and heard by the Court of Appeal in 2018. The reason Leicester City Council was successful in its appeal is precisely that it attested that, although the council had passed a resolution, it would not have, in the words of the Court of Appeal,
“any direct practical effect upon the procurement and purchasing policies actually adopted by the Council”.
So Leicester’s defence was a hypocrisy defence. The executive mayor of the council said that responsibilities for procurement rested with him rather than with the council and, on that basis and due to other associated reasons to do with the public sector equality duty, the council won its appeal. So this is a legitimate question to raise, but that is actually just a characteristic of the status quo. All of this points to the fact that the free speech protections described in the Explanatory Notes need to be a lot clearer for most of us, I suspect, to feel comfortable with what the Bill requires.
The third of the controversies that has arisen so far obviously relates specifically to the fact that we are being asked to take a substantive view on the use by public bodies of BDS tactics against Israel and the Occupied Territories. In our Second Reading debates, the Government are usually criticised for commandeering powers to decide, but today the criticism seems to be that the Government are forcing us to decide this question in the Bill.
As someone who supports both Palestinian and Israeli rights of national self-determination, the policy test I apply is whether these BDS tactics will help or hinder a just and sustainable peace. The answer becomes obvious when you discover that leading global BDS founders’ clearly expressed goal is to prevent a two-state solution and destroy the world’s only majority-Jewish state, which is why they single out Israel alone among the nations and why they remain strangely mute when it comes to Iranian terror, Syrian gulags or Houthi slavery.
Instead, notwithstanding the pessimistic view of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, we should be working for a better future: peace restored, Hamas removed, Gaza reconstructed, Israel secure, Palestinian statehood in prospect and the Abraham accords proceeding. Progress on all these fronts will be underpinned, not undermined, by vibrant and successful Palestinian and Israeli economies, something that BDS aims to destroy.
Just as the Cold War was not ended by Lambeth Council, BDS will not end conflict in the Middle East. In fact, careful scrutiny reveals its problematic aims and its destructive consequences. It seems to me that, within our governmental and public bodies, it is not illegitimate for Parliament to circumscribe the reach of this toxic campaign.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, this is a flawed Bill that is widely opposed, including by a coalition of 70 religious, political and, of course, human rights organisations, many of which have produced briefings, for which I express thanks.
I begin my brief remarks with material from Amnesty International, whose briefing describes the Bill as being predicated on
“the unevidenced assumption that some procurement and investment decisions on the part of public bodies are driven by or result in antisemitism”.
Amnesty International then quotes from the Government’s own impact assessment, paragraph 60 of which says:
“Without a larger volume of evidence, we are unable to draw definitive conclusions regarding the impacts of the proposed legislation on indirect discrimination for ‘race’ and ‘religion or belief’”.
Paragraph 64 says that
“we cannot say … when or if a boycott and disinvestment campaign incites hate crimes or antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred”.
Others have argued, both in this Chamber and elsewhere, that the Bill might actually tend to exacerbate, rather than calm, anti-Semitism.
Another aspect covered by Amnesty International is the number of ways in which the Bill would undermine human rights. I will list some of them. Amnesty says:
“It would make it almost impossible for public bodies to use their procurement and investment policies to incentivise ethical business conduct that is human rights compliant”.
Surely we would want public bodies to support and incentivise ethical behaviour and practice. Amnesty goes on to say:
“It undermines the freedom of expression of public sector decision-makers who may find that statements of principle are illegal and punishable even if they are not reflected in their public body’s decisions”.
We have heard that from lots of places, and I cannot believe that noble Lords really think that is an acceptable position. Further:
“It undermines the attempts of the UK’s devolved governments to integrate human rights into their procurement policies”.
Other significant points are made, including:
“Businesses making an effort to adhere to global standards such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage”.
The principles were unanimously endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011. They have the support of the EU and the OECD and are referenced in several briefings, including one from Yachad, a British Jewish organisation with which I was previously unfamiliar. I have read its briefing with close interest. Specifically, Yachad says that the Bill
“would breach the … UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights”
and
“could run contrary to the government’s commitments to UN resolution 2334”—
which we have heard about from other noble Lords—
“that requires states to differentiate in their dealings with Israel within its internationally recognised borders and the occupied Palestinian territories”.
This has been the position of the UK, and it was argued in the other place on a cross-party basis.
For my part, I favour boycott and disinvestment. In democratic societies, with the freedom that should confer, boycotts are a way of bringing non-violent pressure to seek to bring changes. Like many other noble Lords, I spent many years engaged in boycotting the apartheid regime in South Africa, and I am very pleased to have done so. Had I been in Bristol in 1963, I am sure that, even as a young person, I would have supported the bus boycott to protest the bus companies’ refusal to employ black and Asian crews. But even those who oppose BDS are prepared to say that this proposed legislation is the wrong way forward. Again, Yachad and the Union of Jewish Students, both opposed to BDS, are equally both opposed to those aspects of the Bill.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said, the Union of Jewish Students described the Bill as a curtailment of the democratic right to protest non-violently. Yachad says:
“Democracies are fragile and need to be protected. Using legislation to clamp down on free speech and space for dissent harms our democracy. The idea that we as Jews are somehow safer because it will now be made illegal for public authorities not just to boycott Israel, but China or Myanmar, to name just a few examples, and furthermore will be barred from even saying that they would do so, were they allowed”—
we have heard reference to this—
“makes a mockery of our commitment … to the concept of democratic rights and free speech”.
I am sure that there are some in this Chamber who disagree with Yachad. As I say, it is not an organisation of which I am a member or with which I have a great acquaintance. While I am sure that it would disagree with my support for BDS, I close with a further quote from Yachad’s briefing. It says:
“If the Jewish community wishes to stand shoulder to shoulder with those fighting for their human rights, it cannot expect to be taken seriously when it simultaneously supports legislation that would bar these individuals and groups from encouraging public authorities to boycott states committing human rights abuses against them”.
Like my noble friend Lady Blackstone, I believe that the Bill should be withdrawn. Failing that, it will need very significant and radical amendment.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, as many noble Lords have said, this is a very flawed Bill. It is a major crackdown on democratic values and freedoms and an assault on local democracy. It puts pressure on elected councillors, officials and members of public bodies to do the Government’s bidding or be prosecuted. It prevents elected councillors or members of public bodies exercising moral or ethical judgments in decision-making on procurement and investment, and makes them liable for criminal proceedings if they do so. It bans well-established non-violent campaigning practices—not just BDS, as the noble Lord opposite was saying; it is much wider than that. These sorts of campaigns have been used effectively, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, described, to fight for human rights in countries where these are not basic freedoms. The value of such campaigns can be seen from the ending of the slave trade to the fight against apartheid in South Africa.
Local councils are not an outpost for the delivery of government policies and should not be treated as such. They are living democratic institutions where debate flourishes and challenge to policies, whether from national or local government, is legitimate and to be welcomed. Dissent is a necessary and valuable part of democracy. As a former leader of Bristol City Council for six years, I can testify to the power of dissent and challenge in the scrutiny of local and national policies by local people. What happens in the wider world is important, and not just to central government, and there are large numbers of activists and advocates in local communities, on a range of matters, local and national, that inspire them to stand up for the causes that they believe in. The noble Baroness, Lady Blower, mentioned the bus boycott, an example of dissent and a successful campaign in Bristol. I also remember being part of a very vigorous debate on investment of the council’s pension scheme, and whether it should invest in the tobacco industry—a huge matter for Bristol, with its history of the tobacco industry. That kind of debate would be illegal under this Bill.
Democratic values and beliefs underpin our system of government, whether at national or local level. Those who fail to respect them do so at their and our peril. The Bill criminalises decisions to invest or procure based on morality or political disapproval. Councillors have become more and more concerned at the frequency of government interference in local matters, but criminalising moral judgments and freedom of speech by elected politicians is a chilling new threat to councillors and officials. It will inhibit valuable discussion, advice and transparency over financial decisions. Advice will be, “If in doubt, don’t say it”, for fear of legal action, which may be used as a weapon by those with vested interests who disagree with certain actions.
Is this extreme measure a signal that the Government are content to see human rights violations and are protecting countries that practice these abuses by threatening and criminalising those who dare to challenge them? The gagging Clause 4 means that, if elected councillors speak to say what they would have done had the law not forbidden it, they too are open to criminal prosecution. There is no justification for such a blunt-edged legislative weapon against local democracy and freedom of expression.
The Bill prevents legitimate and peaceful campaigns against human rights abuses. Although focused on Israel, it prevents action on human rights across the world, in countries such as China, Myanmar and Saudi Arabia, or any other violator of human rights not included on the Government’s list. As others have said, Israel, the Palestinian Occupied Territories and the Golan Heights are wrongly conflated in this Bill, in the light of UK policy and UN Resolution 2334. Israel, the Palestinian Occupied Territories and the Occupied Golan Heights have permanent protection from boycotts or disinvestment, and it requires primary legislation for them to be exempted from protection. Following the order of the ICJ, this seems unwise, in that responsibility for complicity may well fall on the UK if the judgment finds Israel guilty of war crimes. In the settlements of the Occupied Territories, human rights abuses are well documented. The settlements are illegal, by the same UN resolution, yet they too are permanently protected from peaceful campaigns to boycott or disinvest.
As it stands, the Bill also prevents action to invest in the future of the planet. Action by public bodies to end financial support for fossil fuel extraction and to divest from activities such as deforestation risk being criminalised as they involve moral or ethical judgments.
The Minister has told us that there are two basic purposes to this legislation. One is to prevent hate crime and anti-Semitism, which she tells us result from boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel. No evidence has been put before us to support this, and the Government’s impact assessment states clearly that no evidence has been found to support it. The second purpose is to prevent a diversity of foreign policy conducted at local level by councils. Again, other noble Lords have called for evidence to show that this is in fact a problem. As I understand it, there are very few instances of competing foreign policies at local level.
The case is not made that the Bill is likely to achieve its expressed purposes. Much more likely, it will cause resentment and anger, worsening public trust and poisoning relationships between Whitehall, local communities and other public bodies. The Bill is draconian and places unreasonable constraints on elected councils and public bodies; it removes the democratic rights that individuals and public bodies should have to determine investments and express views on all issues, including foreign states and human rights. It makes the UK Government complicit in protecting and supporting states that violate human rights, and it criminalises elected members of public bodies who are brave enough to speak out, campaign or take action against such abuses.
Like others, I do not believe that the Bill should be supported. Obviously, we will wait and see what happens in Committee. I hope that there will be amendments to remove some of the many flaws in the Bill.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, this Bill could not have come to our House at a more tragic or inappropriate time. We debate it as the death toll in Israel and Palestine has passed 30,000, when more than 100 Israeli hostages remain in captivity, when more than 17,000 children in Gaza have no living parent, when most of Gaza is now uninhabitable and when Israel tragically finds itself before the ICJ defending claims of genocide—and here at home we have seen a rise in anti-Jewish, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racism.
We debate the Bill at a time when diplomacy has failed, and when the UK and the US find ourselves increasingly frustrated by the leadership both in Israel and in Gaza, neither of which appear to be partners for peace nor part of the solution. That is why more than ever we need civil society in Israel and Palestine and here in the UK to step up and shape the future of both countries. That must include the ability to use other levers of persuasion, to leverage contracts, seats at the table and ESG goals in the private and public sector as a force for achieving good, as defined in international law, UN resolutions and international human rights frameworks.
I welcome the Government’s position on this in recent times. I welcome the last Foreign Secretary’s decision not to engage with extremist Israeli politicians, such as Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, which was an important message of disengagement and boycott. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s decision to ban extremist settlers from travelling to the UK; it was an important move and a message on sanctions. I also welcome the FCDO’s continued advice, which is an important message on investment and disinvestment:
“The UK has a clear position on Israeli settlements: The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights have been occupied … since 1967. Settlements are illegal under international law … There are … clear risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements, and we do not encourage or offer support to such activity”.
Such activities
“entail legal and economic risks stemming from the fact that the Israeli settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied land and are not recognised as a legitimate part of Israel’s territory … UK citizens and businesses should be aware of the potential reputational implications of getting involved in economic and financial activities in settlements, as well as possible abuses of the rights of individuals. Those contemplating any economic or financial involvement in settlements should seek appropriate legal advice”.
That is clear on both the legal and the reputational risks.
There have been many opinions in this Second Reading, but I hope the following can be supported by all in this House: Israel has a right to exist; it should do so within the 1967 borders; lands outside those borders, including the West Bank, east Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights, are Occupied Territories; Palestine has a right to exist; settlements on occupied land are illegal under international law; and we, along with others, should be working towards bringing an end to the occupation and towards the creation of two states, Israel and Palestine, both of them secure, viable as territories and sharing Jerusalem as their capital. Any group, boycott movement or individual which does not support these UK positions is rightly seen as part of the problem. Any movement that tries to leverage public funds to cut across these positions is quite rightly criticised.
Israel should not be held to a higher standard than any other country, but it must also not enjoy impunity in ways that others do not. It should be subject to the same rules and standards to which we hold the rest of the world—no higher or lower. However, this Bill does not say that. It says that the rules simply do not apply to Israel. The Bill does not help bring about peace in Israel and Palestine or support UK foreign policy in achieving its clearly stated goals, nor does it add to collaborative civil society or interfaith work in the UK, and it certainly does not enhance community cohesion. It does exactly the opposite. That is why it makes no sense when tested against historic British principles and values as we understand them, as well as Conservative values.
Sadly, this Bill is a mirror of laws introduced in other parts of the world, mainly in the United States at state level—the culmination of decades of campaigning and a concerted effort by successive Israeli Governments. This is not unusual. Many states, through pressure, lobbying, withholding trade, et cetera, try to persuade us to create a climate in our countries where criticism of them is curtailed at best and silenced at worst. I experienced this at first hand with a number of states during my time at the Foreign Office. We stood firm against it then and we should do so now.
This is an ideological Bill by—dare I say it—an ideological Secretary of State. A clumsy offering to an ideological section of Israeli political opinion, it is part of a well-documented and well-publicised wider international movement started by the extreme right wing, with groups such as the Israel Allies Foundation and others leading the charge, presenting legislators around the world with template Bills to introduce domestic legislation. Some of it is at the behest of Israeli embassies in countries, as was said in evidence in the US at the Georgia Governmental Affairs Committee. Adopted by numerous states across the United States, it is now being spread across Europe. As Prime Minister Netanyahu bragged on Twitter in February 2020:
“Whoever boycotts us will be boycotted … In recent years, we have promoted laws in most US states, which determine that strong action is to be taken against whoever tries to boycott Israel”.
We must resist this. The current Israeli Government’s agenda of silencing criticism of them, including clamping down on Israeli citizens in Israel and Jewish diaspora groups elsewhere and jamming the levers of accountability, is dangerous. It is played out in the US, where, at its worst, it means that American citizens cannot take up some employment and service contracts without signing a “no boycott of Israel” clause first.
This Bill cuts across UK foreign and domestic policy, the Conservative Party’s commitment to localism and our commitment to freedom of speech. It will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression, including legislation introduced in the university sector. It cuts across British Jewish opinion, being opposed by Jewish youth organisations such as the Union of Jewish Students and Jewish human rights groups, writers and activists. It rides roughshod over years of ESG progress, ignores internal FCDO lawyers’ advice, breaches our commitment to UN Security Council resolutions, flies in the face of our business and human rights commitments, introduced by a Conservative Government led by the then Prime Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and launched by the then Foreign Secretary, my noble friend Lord Hague, and it opens up an array of questions about financial decision-making, including on pensions investments and liability for any losses made.
I finish by quoting Jonathan Freedland, who has written that
“this is a bad bill—bad for Britain and bad especially for British Jews, including those who adamantly oppose BDS and its campaign to ostracise Israel … this is a bad bill, an attempt by the Conservatives to pose as the Jews’ best friends after the angst of the Corbyn years. If it is meant as some kind of gift, we should not accept it. It’s not just wrong in principle—it spells big trouble”.
I sincerely hope that this is not what we are doing. It would be deeply disturbing if we were politically playing fast and loose on such an important and sensitive issue.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I remind noble Lords of the seven-minute time limit.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi. In 2019, she told the BBC that she aimed to be challenging, authentic and brave. Your Lordships’ House often sees her living up to that.
I begin with a statement of the obvious. The Green Party, as a party that believes in democracy, in empowering local communities, in encouraging people to get involved in politics at all levels—to make politics what they do, not have done to them—and in defending the rule of law, is opposed to this Bill. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb will focus on the attack on local democracy that the Bill represents, but I have a specific question about local government for the Minister. What happens if a city, town or village is twinned with another and decides for moral or political reasons that it wants to “untwin”? Is divorce to be banned under this Bill? Will a city, town or village be forced to arrange exchanges, even if it does not want to?
The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, made a point that deserves repeating. The first clause of this Bill is entitled:
“Disapproval of foreign state conduct prohibited”.
In George Orwell’s Oceania, that would surely be a banned phrase—far too blunt and obvious in its repression —yet this is what the Government want to make law.
In her introduction, the Minister said that this Bill went through the other place without amendment, as if that were an argument for a light touch in your Lordships’ House. We know that it is instead a glaring red-light signal that we will have a great deal of work to do, not even necessarily in addressing issues that could be described as ideological but in simply tidying up the mess. This mess was noted in the other place—the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, reflected on the many comments across the Chamber about how poorly drafted it was—but no action was taken there. Our archaic, historically assembled and undemocratic constitution is not working at even the most basic level.
The Minister also said that foreign nations might be or are confused about UK foreign policy because of the actions that local councils or nations in these islands choose to take. That reminds me of the heat of the Brexit debate, when some politicians, particularly on the pro-Brexit side, seemed to think that other nations’ diplomats and leaders did not read Twitter or view television. They made pronouncements for local consumption in the UK and were then surprised when they had international impacts.
Please, let us not underestimate the capacity of the peoples of the world to deal with complexity, and to understand that, for example, when Sheffield City Council’s Green Lord Mayor Magid Magid once “banned” Donald Trump from visiting—and good on him—that is not Westminster and that is not UK policy.
However, I now want to turn deadly serious and take us to Gaza, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, did, where my latest briefing from Oxfam says that Israel’s attack on the Gaza Strip has killed more than 29,000 people, including well over 12,000 children. Nearly 70,000 people are injured and at least 7,000 are missing, presumably still underneath the rubble. Some 1.5 million people, including half a million children, are sheltering in less than 20% of the Strip without access to shelter, water, food and medical facilities.
The Government are saying, in response to all of that, that local communities, as represented democratically by councils, cannot take peaceful, non-violent action—the kind of action that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, so powerfully set out, once helped to change the world in the right direction in the context of apartheid South Africa.
Much has been said about the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. This is something that the Green Party supports and has done since our democratic conference of members agreed in 2014 to call on
“individuals, organisations, councils and governments to refuse to deal with companies and institutions identified as facilitating Israel’s military capacity, human rights abuses or illegal settlement activity”.
The motion referred to this being how the Green Party could best act on its commitments as an anti-racist party committed to upholding human rights.
Looking over the history of the Green Party, you see that we have long been a leader—going back decades —in defending the rights of the people of Tibet, back when we were a much smaller party than we are now. We continue to speak for the Uighurs under genocidal repression from the same capital, as I have spoken as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong. We have spoken for the victims of the massive human rights abuses of Saudi Arabia, to which we absolutely oppose arms sales, as we oppose arms sales to Israel.
Finally, I want to pick up the issues about the nations of the UK, as a number of other noble Lords have, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I will use a specific point to make a general one. The Government have claimed that there is no interaction with devolved matters, but how does the Minister explain the interaction with the Well-being of Future Generations Act in Wales?
The well-being of future generations is clearly dependent on a stable, secure, environmentally balanced world—shorthand for the delivery of the sustainable development goals. Even looking at the exemptions in Part 2 of the Schedule to the Bill, there are a lot of potential activities that the Senedd might choose to work with the Government to act against that are not covered under the Schedule.
I am interested in the definition of environmental misconduct in Clause 10(3) of the Bill. The Government have, in other instances, been firmly attached to the view that we can only consider illegal deforestation, for example, yet here we have a clause that refers to any kind of negative environmental impact. Some very interesting things might be done with that.
I have a final, quick question for the Minister. Does the Bill prevent public bodies calling on the Government to change their foreign policy—not taking actions but doing politics? Is that really to be banned, as the Government seem to suggest, as the Government have again and again sought to ban peaceful protest? What fate democracy?
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on showing moral courage in pursuing the Bill’s aim despite all the baseless accusations thrown at it. It is supported by the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies.
In a broader context, the Bill is a timely and necessary stand against anti-Semitism. In a narrower context, the Bill does not harm free speech or protest, as has been alleged, because it does not prevent individuals expressing their opinions. It is directed against damaging action, procurement and investment. There are plenty of exceptions: for example, environmental misconduct and modern slavery. The BDS movement, which is the target of the Bill, has been ineffective—thankfully—but serves to fuel hatred in periods such as this one when there are peaks of anti-Semitic incidents in the public realm.
I would set aside the parallel with South Africa. In South Africa, action was to achieve—one might say—regime change and internal matters. At the heart of BDS, as expressed by some of its leaders, is the end of Israel as a state. The true nature of the ill that the Bill combats can be seen from the briefings sent against it by opponents. They focus, of course, on Israel, or they interpret it as prohibiting action designed to prevent climate change, which is not the case, as it is state activity that the Bill is targeting. It is not targeting freedom of speech, which is not within the ambit of the Bill, which is about action. Indeed, one might even argue that there are too many exceptions and loopholes. After all, when you consider how much free speech there is about Israel and Palestine, there is hardly any topic that is more discussed. Incidentally, I must congratulate the universities pension scheme for keeping its investments in Israel, despite protests by the University and College Union, which has a track record of being against Jews and Israel.
The most unpleasant opposition to the Bill came from a group of churches—not, I should say, the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church, but what might be called smaller communities. They include Embrace the Middle East, the Iona Community, the Methodist Church, Quakers in Britain, Sabeel-Kairos and a few others. They call on right reverend Prelates in this House to oppose the Bill in its entirety, because it would, in their view, prevent local councils and other bodies considering ethical issues in the conduct of a foreign state when making procurement or investment decisions. They then go on to say that Israel should not be singled out for special protection against boycott campaigns, giving it unique rights in UK law.
This would be ironic if it were not so uninformed. For centuries, the church has singled out Jews for special treatment. It is entirely because Israel is being singled out for boycott that the Bill is before us. There are no boycotts and no collective church action in relation to Saudi Arabian oil, or Chinese products, which are probably in use by many public bodies and churches. There are no protests or marches against Iran and its horrendous abuse of women and use of the death penalty; no persecution of Chinese students on campus because of their Government’s actions; and no marches against Syria, where the conflict has killed and displaced millions. Note that tens of thousands, maybe millions, of Christians have been persecuted and killed in Nigeria and in the Congo. There is no concern about goods coming from occupied northern Cyprus. The religious hostility to Israel goes back long before the current hostilities in the Middle East. Some of it is virulently anti-Zionist and anti-Israel, denies the Jewish historical connection to Israel in theological terms, and advocates supersession of Christianity over Judaism.
The actions of these religious bodies in supporting boycott bring to mind the action of the church over many centuries in restricting Jewish trades and professions and isolating Jewish communities. It is high time that this focus on Israel by these churches should lead to their considering their own historic responsibility for the perilous situation of the world Jewish community and its desperate search for safety in one tiny country. It looks like anti-Semitism, no matter how much the BDS supporters claim to be targeting only Israel and not Jews, because the thin line between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel has been worn down almost to non-existence by virtue of the protests we have seen on our streets and in our universities in recent weeks. I am sure the right reverend Prelates in this House will have no hesitation in rejecting the call from these minor churches. By so rejecting them, they would place the Church of England in a position to foster good relations, work towards peace, and distance itself from the anti-Jewish actions of the past.
Christian BDS supporters should be embarrassed by those who are campaigning with them: for example, Ayatollah Khomeini and Hamas. The BDS campaign is negative and, fortunately, has not harmed Israel’s activities and economy. Churches should instead help Palestinians build democratic institutions and invest in their economy, and urge them to accept peace offers. Christian-Jewish understanding would be gravely weakened if churches insisted on continuing to boycott.
This Bill is a moral guide. It will do something to tone down the loathing of Israel we see expressed all around us, targeting Jewish communities—hence, the blurring of the line between anti-government sentiment and anti-Jewish sentiment. Russian and Chinese residents here have never had to face the same hatred. Jewish people need one safe haven. This House should consider the responsibility of the way that Britain ended the mandate all those years ago, leading in part to some of the trouble we see today.
The boycott proponents and the hate-filled marches remind us of why the Bill is still necessary. Boycotts do nothing to assist Palestinians; they simply ally the boycotters with the anti-Semites and the authorities who, over the centuries, have tried to impound and constrain Jewish communities, not least in the many Middle East countries from which the Jews were expelled in the 20th century. The Government have my whole- hearted support, and I wish this Bill—with amendments, no doubt—a safe and swift passage.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, this is a political Bill, a bad Bill, an unnecessary Bill and a counterproductive Bill. As other speakers have mentioned, it is also one of the most incompetently drafted Bills that we have had before us. One example which has been mentioned is that it fails to provide a clear definition of what constitutes a public body, which is clearly a central issue. Can the Minister enlighten the House on a more precise definition of a public body?
There is much to say, but I will focus on three points. First, the Bill represents arrogant overreach by an incompetent Government who are well past their sell-by date. Secondly, even if we were to accept the Bill’s premise—which I do not—it is not just unnecessary but counterproductive. Thirdly, government Ministers, in proposing the Bill, commit the offence that they claim needs to be prevented by the Bill.
My first point is that the Bill is clearly one more example of arrogant overreach. Michael Gove, in opening the Second Reading in the Commons, stated that
“UK foreign policy is a matter for the UK Government”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/23; col. 586.]
I have to disagree. UK foreign policy is a matter for us all, individually and through our representative organisations and those working on our behalf. As free citizens, we are all entitled to exercise rights relating to foreign affairs, individually and through organisations. One of the strengths of this country is that there are multiple locations of power and responsibility. The assumption that only the Government are responsible for relationships with foreign countries destroys that strength. That arrogance was made clear when the Minister, in introducing the Bill, used the word “subordinate” to refer to other public bodies. It is a question of partnership; it is not an issue of subordination.
Other speakers have drawn attention to issues where the views of the Government have lagged behind those of other public bodies. Apartheid South Africa is only one example, although the speech by my noble fried Lord Hain was particularly powerful. I was also pleased that my noble friend Lord Boateng recalled the occasion when together we voted, as members of the GLC, to declare freedom for South Africa and in support of Nelson Mandela.
I add that this is not a question of being right or wrong on these issues; what is good is that there is a variety of views. I am not claiming that local authorities and local government pension schemes will always be right—sometimes they are wrong—but it is the variety of views put into the public debate that is so important.
My second point is that, even if we accept the Bill’s premise, it is not only unnecessary but counterproductive. I am not a legal expert, but, over the years, I have been the recipient of much legal advice about the powers and responsibilities of public bodies. That includes primarily local authorities and local government pension schemes, both of which would be caught by this Bill. I am sure that, in Committee, we will discuss in detail the problems created for such bodies by the Bill, but I will make a more general point in this debate. In broad terms, the law already provides that, when decisions are taken by public bodies, they are required to take account of relevant matters and to ignore matters that are irrelevant. My question for the Minister is: how does the Bill affect those obligations? It either simply restates the law or it contradicts those requirements. My concern is that, at best, it will confuse the position, and, at worst, it will require public bodies, whether local authorities or pension funds, to take into account irrelevant matters when taking decisions, including in particular the views of the national Government.
My third point is that government Ministers, in proposing the Bill, commit the offence that they claim needs to be prevented. The argument here is simple. Michael Gove stated at Second Reading that the Bill
“provides protection for minority communities, especially the Jewish community, against campaigns that harm community cohesion and fuel antisemitism”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/23; col. 586.]
But there is no reference in the Bill to anti-Semitism. What it does mention is Israel, which is not the same thing.
I enter this debate with some trepidation. It is not for me to say what constitutes anti-Semitism, but look at the definition of anti-Semitism provided by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. It makes it clear that
“criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”.
That point seems to have been lost in this debate, with a few speakers saying explicitly that supporting action against Israel is inherently anti-Semitic. That is itself an anti-Semitic claim, according to what the definition goes on to say. As an example of the manifestations of anti-Semitism, it describes anything that
“might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity”.
But that is exactly what this Bill does—reinforced by comments that have been made today.
I have no idea whether my time is up, because the Clock did not start properly, so I will exploit that opportunity. We know what the Government’s real intention is for this Bill, and it was clearly set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi. We know what was in the minds of the Government in introducing this Bill. I have to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, following her remarks, whether she really believes that Michael Gove is her friend in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Marylebone, who is not in his place, said that the Government have good intentions with this Bill, but I do not believe that they have any good intentions with it. It is an example of gotcha legislation, trying to paint those who take different views with the crime of anti-Semitism, which is clearly untrue. As other speakers have identified, instead of focusing on these issues which are symptoms of anti-Semitism, we have to tackle the underlying causes.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as others have explained so well, this Bill presents a dilemma. I have long argued that the BDS campaign has seeded a culture of normalising anti-Semitism. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I will have to disagree on what that definition might be; however, one of the points about democracy that I agree with him on is that we need that kind of debate. The problem I have is that BDS is an entirely illiberal and censorious boycott campaign; but, on the other hand, this legislation, which aims to ban such boycotts, is also illiberal and censorious. So, what to do?
In the broadest terms, the Bill’s premise could sanction a dangerous trend of government determining in law which political campaigns are legitimate and which are not. I found the Minister’s emphasis on public authorities all speaking with one voice on foreign policy more scary than reassuring. Perhaps she might consider just the smidgen of a possibility that one day, the Government are in opposition and are involved with public bodies that disagree with official foreign policy. It is hard to know whether the Bill would catch them then.
However, if the aim is to rein in public institutions from dabbling in contentious moral decisions beyond the scope of their core responsibilities, which Michael Gove certainly seemed to imply, then we should recognise that, ironically, one reason why investment and procurement strategies have been politicised in recent years is government-backed, top-down directives. Just look at the way that pursuing ESG targets and adopting divisive EDI diversity criteria have distorted investment and procurement decisions, and not all for the good. By and large, therefore, the Government should stop interfering in what is and is not invested in by autonomous public bodies.
Beyond a concern about the threat to the autonomy of, for example, universities, councils and arts organisations, which was well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and many others, I just cannot see how the Bill can avoid stifling democratic debate. We have heard powerful speeches, especially those critiquing Clause 4 as a gagging clause. However, the provision that prohibits vice-chancellors, chief execs of arts organisations and council leaders from saying that they would support the boycott if it were lawful is in fact Orwellian—and that is not overusing the word. Is it not dangerous to discourage leaders of public bodies from explaining their decision-making processes? Surely it is in the public interest that we know the pros and cons of financial investments, or why they might want to boycott, and so on.
Unlike some, therefore, I am not somebody who goes along with a rather unpleasant cynicism about the Government’s motives. I am happy to accept that the Bill is being put forward in good faith and that it is an attempt to tackle one of the sources of anti-Jewish hatred—BDS-style boycotts. However, despite the intention, clamping down on open discussion, which so much of the Bill does, will make it more difficult to tackle anti-Semitic racism in the public sphere.
Those of us who oppose BDS should hold firm that it is we—or it should be—who are on the side of democratic free speech. In contrast, BDS is a boycott campaign whose very essence is to use regressive censorship tactics to isolate Israel economically and culturally. However, note that this is not about shaming Israel or embarrassing it into taking a different policy decision. We have heard a lot in today’s debate about the past boycott of South Africa—maybe it is an age thing—but that was aimed at ridding South Africa of apartheid, not of ridding the world of South Africa. The BDS movement, however, aims to rid the world of a Zionist state: that is, to eradicate Israel. As people have called for evidence, that is what its founders and much of its literature say.
I think I get why the Government might focus on trying to find a way of curtailing BDS. Today’s boycott culture is pretty grim. I recently encountered those abusive, rather vicious protests outside Zara and McDonald’s, which I was told not to enter and buy a burger from, as it would mean that I was endorsing genocide. It is scary that so many of those young protesters have no qualms about mirroring the 1930s Nazi tactic of blocking Jewish services and businesses with their “Don’t buy from the Jews” slogans. BDS campaigns have certainly created a boycott culture, with anyone associated with Israel being treated in a cavalier, cruel and prejudicial way. There was the terrible incident the other day, when the young Israeli swimming champion was booed and jeered; and Gary Lineker, a leading BBC pundit, casually went along with the BDS demand to kick the Israel football team out of FIFA.
I am all for a robust response to this ugly mood, but this proposed legislation follows a worrying trend: creating criminalising laws as a substitute for political courage in taking on contemporary challenges. I therefore ask the Minister: is the problem the Government seek to tackle a plethora of university senates using BDS schemes to avoid investing in Israel? Hardly. However, there is the huge problem of a spike in anti-Semitic abuse targeting Jewish students—as described so vividly by the noble Lord, Lord Mann—and, by the way, of leaders of those public institutions often looking away. Consider the shameful case of a Birmingham University Jewish chaplain being driven off campus and into hiding after returning from military service fighting Hamas. Beyond these visceral attacks, let us not forget that too many in academia have cultivated the intellectual justification for anti-Jewish attitudes among the young by propagating decolonisation ideology and critical race theory—branding Jews as the embodiment of white privilege and Israel as the epitome of a colonial settler state, and therefore fair game for righteous hatred.
How will the Bill’s restrictions deal with that or help arts organisations tackle pernicious cultural boycotts such as the cancelling of Israeli artists, be it the London theatre that pulled the plug on the Jewish Film Festival, the cancellation of the Israeli hip-hop opera at the Edinburgh Fringe, or the bullying of high-profile artists who have the temerity to announce that they will gig in Tel Aviv? The Bill will not make an iota of difference.
I finish with the story of the Jewish nightclub owner who closed down his nightclub last week, having received a package addressed “Zionist child killer” that contained children’s clothes drenched in fake blood. However, the final straw was the threat to boycott the club. The Bill will make no difference.
By the way, I am delighted to have found so many free speech allies in this House; suddenly, everybody is on the side of free speech. I have not experienced that in the years that I have been here—only in defending BDS. None the less, I do not want to betray that free speech by agreeing with the Government that we should clamp down on it just because I want to fight anti-Semitism.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, when I was a child, we always had grapefruit for Sunday breakfast. However, for some months of the year it was tinned grapefruit because my mother, one of the hundreds of thousands referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, refused to buy South African Outspan when that was all that was available. Now, of course, the Bill would not have prevented her personal anti-apartheid boycott, but that was brought to mind by the Quakers’ warning, cited by my noble friend Lord Boateng, that the Bill would restrict their ability to put
“their faith into action by campaigning on matters of conscience, particularly at the local authority level where opportunities for citizens to influence democratic decisions are greater”.
In addition, as Bond points out:
“We now know that the local authorities who took a stand against Apartheid were on the right side of history”.
Had the Bill been in force, it suggests, as have a number of noble Lords,
“it is likely such campaigns would have been illegal”.
What does it say about local democracy that local authorities will no longer have the right or the power to respond positively to such campaigns? The Bill represents a further erosion of local democracy, which is one of many reasons why it prompted so much criticism on the Conservative Benches in the Commons. Indeed, it is tempting just to string together quotations from what they described as “bad legislation” and “a very un-Conservative measure”.
One important point some of them made was that this may have been a manifesto commitment, but that commitment was country-agnostic. As we have heard, the Bill singles out Israel and the Occupied Territories for special treatment. In doing so, it undermines its own stated aims. In particular, many organisations, including some Jewish organisations, warn that, in the words of Kit Malthouse MP, it is
“playing into the anti-Semitism we have seen rise in this country”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/10/23; col. 904.]
Data published last week, referred to by the Minister, underscored just how serious that rise has been.
The impact assessment admits that official assumptions about the impact of the legislation on community relations are just that—assumptions in the absence of adequate data. My honourable friend Dame Margaret Hodge pleaded with the Minister to withdraw what she called
“an act of complete irresponsibility and unbelievable foolishness”,
particularly in the context of the unspeakable horrors taking place in the Middle East as we speak. It will, she warned,
“only heighten tensions between communities”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/10/23; cols. 888-89.]
The other stated aim is to stop public bodies pursuing their own foreign policy agenda, as we have heard, so that the UK
“speaks with one voice internationally”.
I think I heard the Minister say at the outset that the nation must speak with one voice. That to me smacks of totalitarianism—it is frightening.
On foreign policy, the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Alicia Kearns MP, warned that by, in effect, conflating Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the Bill
“is a departure from our foreign policy”.
The fact that they are listed separately does not, as Ministers have tried to argue, negate the point. Furthermore, as has been said, it risks putting us in breach of UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which the UK itself drafted. Kearns expressed the worry that
“the Bill will leave the international community questioning whether Israeli settlements in the OPTs and the Golan Heights are still regarded as illegal by the UK Government”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/23; cols. 604-05.]
In this context, I welcome the reassurances given by the Foreign Secretary to your Lordships’ House last week, and his reminder that
“we should focus on what is happening in the West Bank as well as Gaza”.—[Official Report, 13/2/23; col. 147.]
He cited what he called the “chilling statistic” that 96 Palestinian children had been killed there since the horrors of 7 October, but I respectfully suggest that his proud statement that the Government had for the first time just taken out sanctions against violent settlers does not add up to much, given that it was only four settlers. On the Government’s own website, the FCDO’s press release announcing those sanctions states that Israel’s “failure to act” in the face of “unprecedented levels” of violence, harassment and intimidation,
“has led to an environment of near total impunity for settler extremists”.
I echo my noble friend Lord Grocott when I ask what hope there is for the holy grail of a two-state solution if one of those states is subject to ever more illegal settlements that deprive Palestinians of their land and livelihoods? When the Government talk about speaking with one voice internationally, they cannot be surprised if some organisations and citizens want to see more than speaking—actions, not words. And if central government will not take decisive actions against the illegal settlements, of course they might well look to local government, which will now be powerless to act.
The Minister sent us a letter which tried to reassure us about some of the concerns raised in the Commons, including those regarding protection of the environment and freedom of speech. There is not time to go into any detail now, but suffice it to say that civil society organisations concerned about the Bill have not been reassured. Nor has the higher education sector—I declare an interest here as an emeritus professor. Universities UK fears that the Bill will have
“severe unintended consequences for the higher education sector”,
including contradicting existing duties regarding freedom of speech and academic freedom, as well as official policy and guidance on establishing international partnerships and collaborations, as has been already mentioned.
To conclude, the impact assessment explains that the Government decided on primary rather than secondary legislation so as to “allow for proper scrutiny”. It points out that
“good parliamentary scrutiny of legislation can allow parliamentarians and civil society to highlight problems in bills before they become law”.
Well, the Government have not shown much, if any, willingness to listen and act on concerns raised so far. While I wish they would withdraw this miserable, dangerous Bill, I, like my noble friend Lord Wood, am a realist and I hope that, at the very least, they will take seriously the problems that I know will be highlighted during its passage through your Lordships’ House and that they will act so that those problems do not become enshrined in law.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. Specifically, I am chair of Sport Wales, president of the LGA and chancellor of Northumbria University.
Many of the briefings I have received have raised the unintended consequences of the Bill, and many have referred to it as the “anti-boycott Bill”. It might seem trivial that I raise sport within this debate, but actually sport and boycotts have been inextricably linked, and jurisdictions have constantly used sport for political gain.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I had a mother who refused to buy anything from South Africa. Some of my first memories of sport as a child are watching with interest the Moscow Olympic Games. Over the years, debates over whether sport can, or should, be used as a tool of soft foreign policy have grown stronger. With every Games they become more involved, nuanced and complicated, and additional pressure is put on individual athletes. I welcome the fact that athletes are asked to use their platform to debate issues that are important to them, but they may get pulled into this debate without realising some of the consequences.
It is easy to forget that back in 2012 there were calls from many quarters for Paralympians, and specifically British athletes, to boycott the Games because of various sponsors—as opposed to the countries that were competing or where they were staged. Looking at broader sports politics, we see that the question of whether allowing athletes to compete as neutrals has any impact is up for debate—although I must say that Mr Putin did have some minor respect for the Olympic movement, because he chose not to invade Ukraine due to the Olympic truce. The Paralympic truce does not exist in the same way. Russia is not the only country to use sport as a political tool. Sport and politics are inextricably linked. The strongest soft politics is the medal table, which every country signs up to.
I will not repeat what the Minister said about the Bill’s intentions, but some of the vagaries of international sports policy are apparent. On 12 January, Inside the Games announced that the International Ice Hockey Federation had suspended Israel from all competitions, for the time being, to protect the safety of participants, “including Israelis”. A few days later it changed its mind and allowed the Israeli team back in.
The Minister mentioned devolved authorities. Well, sport is devolved in the UK, and qualification for various events is a mix of home country and United Kingdom bodies. UK Sport, possibly the best known of our sports bodies, is classified on the Government’s website as an executive non-departmental public body. So, I would like to understand whether sport, sporting bodies, national governing bodies, teams for sports events, training camps, conferences, or anyone involved in the bidding process—or any of the above, combined—will be impacted by the Bill.
Any cultural institution that is unsure of whether it is bound by Section 6 of the HRA has been told that it should seek independent legal advice. That is, quite simply, not practicable for any small sports organisation in a fast-changing sporting landscape where athletes have little choice where selection events are held, or where jurisdictions continuously hide behind sport as a potential tool of political gain.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, like other Members of this House I feel a sense of profound shock at the rise in anti-Semitism since the appalling attacks of 7 October. As my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill said, the Jewish community feels increasingly and understandably beleaguered, and we must do all we can to support it. But, like my noble friend, I believe that this is a very bad Bill and I do not believe it will do anything to combat anti-Semitism. Indeed, I fear it will do the opposite.
If that were not bad enough, the Bill tramples on fundamental rights of free speech and peaceful protest, provides extraordinary powers to Ministers and enforcement authorities and, as my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire points out, effectively introduces an offence of thought crime. Above all, it is an ill-considered mess of misjudgments, prejudices and confusions, all competing to contradict one another.
In 1988 I spent some time teaching in a rural school in Zimbabwe. When I was there, one of the students asked me to try to visit his father in South Africa. This was in the dying days of the apartheid regime, although that was not at all clear then. There was a state of emergency, and I saw at first hand the vile nature of that regime.
When I came back to the UK, my first engagement in campaigning was on the milk crates outside South Africa House and in the boycotts of the student Anti- Apartheid Movement, inspired very much by campaigners such as the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Boateng, who spoke so powerfully. My decisions about boycotting South African goods were personal and were motivated by political and moral disapproval. They did not represent my individual foreign policy; they represented my moral and political disapproval. Thank goodness that local authorities, from Lambeth to Sheffield, Glasgow and all around the country, were prepared to stand up and make their voice heard.
Some years later, I had the privilege of working in the first democratic Parliament in South Africa. I can absolutely attest to what the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, said: the absolute saving grace of the UK was that local authorities and others had been prepared to take financial decisions on the basis of moral and political disapproval when, sadly, our Government were not prepared to do that and were seen as an aider and abetter of the apartheid regime.
Much was made, both in the Second Reading debate in the other place and repeated by the Minister today, about not having rival foreign policies, but Clause 3(7) conflates Israel and the Occupied Territories, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark pointed out. This seems to represent the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities running an alternative foreign policy to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, rather than local authorities doing the same. That has really grave implications. I hope that the Minister can tell us what representations have been received from British diplomatic posts across the globe about the impacts of this Bill, which goes absolutely contrary to Resolution 2334 and other international obligations, as other noble Lords have said.
When I picked up the Bill, I was concerned that it seemed pretty worrying, but when I looked through it and I read just some of the clause headings, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, such as “Disapproval of foreign state conduct” and “Related prohibition on statements”, it brought to mind exactly that apartheid regime in South Africa. These are the sorts of clauses that you would find in the law and order amendments Acts, and of which John Vorster and Hendrik Verwoerd would have been proud.
We have to think very carefully about the precedents that we are setting in this Bill. As we have heard, not only would it prevent local authorities taking financial decisions of the form we have debated but it prohibits people stating that they would have acted in such a way if they had been able to, but they could not do so because it was not lawful. The Minister tried to make a distinction and claim that a local authority leader, for example, could state that they were in favour of a boycott or investment decisions about a particular territory if they did so in their personal capacity. But if somebody said, for example, “I don’t believe in investing in the Occupied Territories or Xinjiang”, their constituents asked, “Then why is your local authority not following that belief?”, and they said, “Because the law doesn’t allow me to”, they would commit an offence under the Bill, if I understand it rightly, subject to an unlimited fine. That is extraordinary. It is even worse than that, because it is not just if you say that—this is where the thought crime comes in—but if it is thought that you are likely to say something like that, and if you are thought likely to contravene the applicable provision of the Bill.
We will go through this in much greater detail in Committee, but this is a hugely flawed Bill. It is massively politically divisive at a time when there is no need for political division because, as the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and the Official Opposition Front Bench have made clear, people are happy to come together to try to address the actual issue without bringing about these draconian rules, which have absolutely no place in our democracy.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, as has been said, this Bill is flawed, poorly drafted and damaging. It is likely to have a detrimental impact on the UK’s ability to protect and promote human rights around the world. It is, in certain respects, inconsistent with our obligations under international law, it will stifle free speech and protest, and it will take powers long exercised by local authorities into the hands of the Secretary of State. It is also likely to lead to an array of illogical outcomes.
The Minister sought to make it clear that although the Bill has general application to all material decisions by public bodies, it is really directed at the boycotting of Israel. In the Bill, the Occupied Territories and the Occupied Golan Heights are seen as part and parcel of Israel, when in fact, as we know, international law makes it very clear that that is not the case and that Israel has been in breach of international law in occupying those territories.
The Bill prohibits boycotting. We know that there can be exceptions in certain circumstances if sanctioned by the Secretary of State, but in no circumstances whatever can Israel be excluded. It gets a free pass; that one nation is wrongly singled out. That is seriously worrying at this time. I think particularly of the allegations of hypocrisy that there will be, and the ways in which this will be so enraging to many in the global South.
All public bodies are already prohibited in law from pursuing policies or taking any actions that are directly or indirectly anti-Semitic. I make it clear that the rise in anti-Semitism that has taken place since 7 October has been really horrifying. I was shocked myself when I heard from a young Jewish woman that she got on the bus early in the morning and saw, engraved on the frosted windows, a swastika. Seeing that she and her friend were upset, somebody went and cleared the window. But these things, which are intimidatory and aggressive, are being experienced all the time. I walked over a bridge close to where I live and saw that posters had been put up of those who were hostages. Each face had been obliterated with black aerosol paint and, only a few days later, the posters had even been torn down. It questions what people are seeking to do in denying that hostages have been taken.
Fortunately, law does exist which can be used to confront these things, and not only against individuals but public bodies. These protections are found in our common law and in our statutes, as well as in the European Convention on Human Rights. All are enforceable in our courts. So I urge on this House that there are tools which should be used more actively to counter anti-Semitism, and that there is much more to be done. However, I cannot believe that this Bill is the right way to do it: not at this time, when there is this grievous conflict taking place which is costing so many lives. We have already had the events of 7 October, followed by the deaths of many children, the displacement of so many people, the reduction of homes to rubble and the acts on the West Bank which have led to the sanctions which our Foreign Secretary described to us the other day. In the midst of all that, to pursue this Bill seems to me to be inept politics, crass diplomacy and another blot on our reputation internationally.
It is also inconsistent in policy. This Government strongly endorse the use of economic power to mark disapproval of foreign state conduct. We have done it all the time in relation to the war in Ukraine and dealing with Russia and are looking at doing it more so now. It is a way in which we express a sense of horror and raise global standards. The Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020 introduced a very tough sanctions regime in the Magnitsky sanctions.
Turning to Clause 1, Richard Hermer, a colleague at the Bar, described it as being so badly drafted that
“it is far from clear what the ambit of the prohibited conduct actually is”.
Like others in this Chamber, I was very active in the anti-apartheid movement, calling for divestment in South Africa. I was very proud when my city, Glasgow, led the way as a local authority in taking a stand against what was happening. Those were the early days, so when people say, “Oh, but South Africa is so different from what is happening in Israel or other places”, all I can say is, “Sometimes it starts small and then becomes something that really does create change”.
This Bill would, at a stroke, preclude public bodies from taking into account a range of deplorable conduct by a foreign state. We have heard how it can be used. The Secretary of State can intervene if it is about the national interest or human trafficking, but what about genocide? What about unlawful military invasions? What about war crimes, other crimes against humanity or racial discrimination? The Bill would preclude a council from refusing to purchase goods from Russian-occupied Ukraine. I am very anxious to see us stop buying Chinese cotton goods. I want local authorities to say that they are not going to buy it for the uniforms for their staff, boiler suits, overalls, school uniforms and towels. People must be able to do this.
So I say finally that I do suspect the reason for this. I suspect that sticking with this Bill is to set a trap for the Labour Party in opposition. It is to say that if you do not vote with this Bill, we will accuse you in the hustings of being anti-Semitic. That is what this is about, so let us not pretend that it will effect any real change in ending or limiting discrimination of an anti-Semitic kind. The key provisions of this Bill are deeply troubling from a domestic and an international law perspective, with absolutely malign intentions behind why it is being put before this House at this time. It is why I really hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, will seek its withdrawal before long.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, even, or perhaps especially, when we disagree.
I want to focus on Clause 3(7), which provides in effect that a future Minister seeking to permit public bodies to boycott Israel would have to do so by way of primary legislation and not secondary legislation. The question has been asked: why is Israel treated differently by being singled out in the Bill? The short answer is that Israel is already treated differently and singled out—by international institutions and by too many public bodies here in the UK. That differential treatment and singling out has real effects, not only on the State of Israel but—and this is my focus—on civil society in the UK.
This Bill puts Israel into a special category because Israel is put by others, both internationally and nationally, into a special category. I will look first at this internationally. Last year, the United Nations General Assembly condemned Israel 14 times. The rest of the world put together: seven. Since 2015, the score stands at Israel 140, the whole of the rest of the world put together, 68. The UN Human Rights Council has a standing agenda item, item 7, which is focused on Israel —and only on Israel. This is the same UN Human Rights Council that, just two days after the 7 October massacre, held a minute’s silence to mourn, to quote from its own website,
“the loss of innocent lives in the occupied Palestinian territory and elsewhere”.
“Elsewhere”? For 2,000 years, the Jewish people had nowhere. Now, according to the United Nations Human Rights Council, they have an “elsewhere”. All of this is not because Israel is wicked, let alone uniquely wicked. It is because, internationally, Israel is treated differently and singled out.
Secondly, Israel is also treated differently and singled out by public bodies here in the UK. In 2020, the Welsh Government brought out a new national procurement note singling out Israel—and only Israel—for potential sanctions. A decade earlier, West Dunbartonshire Council adopted a policy of boycotting Israeli—and only Israeli—goods, including even books printed in Israel. So the sermons of Jesus printed in totalitarian China were permitted, but they were banned if they were printed in the place where he actually delivered them.
A number of English councils implemented BDS against Israeli—and only Israeli—products, including Leicester in 2014 and Lancaster in 2021. In 2014, Birmingham City Council threatened not to renew a contract with Veolia because of its activity in the West Bank. Perhaps the now insolvent Birmingham City Council should have focused rather less on the West Bank and more on its own bank.
My third point is that it is not only the fact that Israel is treated differently. Anti-Israel resolutions and boycotts have a different and dramatic effect on civil society. The correlation is clear and unambiguous. When Israel is targeted, it ends up with attacks on Jews. I am not saying that all anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism—although a lot of it is, especially when Israel, and only Israel, is singled out for condemnation and boycott. You can support Israel but oppose its present Government, as do many of my friends in Israel. The Opposition Benches in this House demonstrate that you can critique a Government but support the state.
But let us be clear: when you chant “From the river to the sea”, you are not critiquing the Israeli Government; you are calling for the destruction of Israel. We are increasingly seeing anti-Israel rhetoric blurring into demonising and attacking Jews. “Zionists” is being used as a code word for Jews.
It is a code word, because who are these Zionists? The overwhelming majority of Jews, both in the UK and around the world, are Zionists because of our history, ancient and modern. We have prayed for, and facing, the land of Israel for thousands of years. We know the cost in Jewish lives from not having a State of Israel and the price paid in lives for having that state. Many of us have family there, in what is now the world’s largest Jewish community. When Israel is singled out, the inevitable effect is that Jews, regardless of their passports or politics, are also singled out in commerce, culture and education.
In commerce, when Sainsbury’s removed kosher food from its shelves after giving in to anti-Israel protesters, it was Jews who could not buy food—a scene repeated in the Republic of Ireland only last week.
In culture, two weeks ago, a Jewish member of the audience at the Soho Theatre was sworn at by Paul Currie, an anti-Semite masquerading as a comic, because he would not stand in respect when a Palestinian flag was unveiled on stage. Much of the rest of the audience joined in the chanting against him. Another London theatre cancelled an event hosted by a UK Jewish charity raising money for Israeli students, because the staff refused to come into work.
In education, the Jewish chaplain at Leeds University is now in hiding with his family, because he has been targeted by protesters, who also daubed anti-Israel slogans on the Jewish society building. When students marched through Birmingham University with a banner reading “Zionists off our campus”, what they meant, in practice, was “No Jews here”. The vast majority of Jewish students, like the overwhelming majority of the Jewish community, believe in an independent Jewish state. That is what Zionism is. If, like His Majesty’s Government, you support a two-state solution, which calls for a safe and secure Israel alongside a Palestinian state, you are a Zionist too.
All this is a problem for Jews, but it is a tragedy for everyone else. A society that permits anti-Semitism is a society suffering from a terminal illness. That is an iron rule of history: anti-Semitism destroys any society that harbours it.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
I just want to read the noble Lord a quotation from the Israeli National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir. He says that to encourage the exodus of Gaza’s inhabitants and the influx of Israeli settlers to the Gaza Strip would be a “correct, just, moral … solution”. When it comes to people speaking in language that is exclusionary and discriminatory against the other side, I am afraid that some of it comes very strongly from extreme right-wing Jewish settlers.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I loathe Itamar Ben-Gvir and his rhetoric and want to see that sort of rhetoric out of Israel and out of everywhere. But let us be real: when people opposed apartheid, they were opposing a policy of the South African Government. What BDS wants is not to change the policy of Israel, but to change the existence of Israel by destroying it.
The Bill singles out Israel because Israel is always singled out. It is quite right, therefore, that, if a future Minister wants to change that policy to allow people to boycott Israel and give succour to the world’s oldest hatred, he or she should have to account for their actions at the Dispatch Box.
I have no doubt that improvements can be made to the Bill. I look forward to working with many others in doing so, especially on the international law point, but, for the reasons that I have given, I give the Bill my full support.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I think I am going to sound a little feeble after the passion of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. I apologise for sneaking into the gap, but I suddenly realised that there is something that I wanted to say and it is about local democracy.
The Bill threatens to remove the right of councils and councillors to do their best for their residents. I was a councillor on Southwark Council for four long, hard years. I am aware that councillors represent their residents and answer to their voters in a way that most MPs just cannot, because councillors are there on the ground—they are there shopping, gardening or socialising. People come up to them all the time and tell them about their fears and concerns, and what they want them to do. The Bill would limit councils’ actions to do their best for their residents.
I will give the example of South African apartheid. I lived in Lesotho for six years. It is a tiny kingdom completely surrounded by South Africa. The residents of Lesotho, the Basotho, saw apartheid up close, even though they were not involved. At times, the white residents experienced the other side of apartheid because, if you were in a long queue at the post office, the window would, amazingly, close just as you arrived. In a tiny way, it made me understand what it is like to be excluded and unseen.
If I had come back to the UK then and become a councillor, with all my anger and fury about apartheid and how it penalised people for nothing other than the colour of their skin, I would have done my best to prevent any council support for the South African Government in what we bought or supported. I am fairly sure that the residents of Southwark would have supported my actions. That would be illegal under this Bill. This is another bad Bill from a bad Government.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, this has been a most instructive Second Reading and I very much look forward to the Minister’s response to the many detailed points that have been raised. I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association and that I have a small local authority pension.
I also make it clear that I support the long-term security of the State of Israel but think that a broad Bill of this kind should not be built on a single country, nor should it include the Occupied Territories—as we have heard from several speakers. No doubt when we are in Committee or on Report, we will pursue that in greater detail.
I have concluded that the Bill is disproportionate. It runs counter to the basic principles of civil liberties, human rights and upholding international law. As my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire said:
“This Bill is ambiguous, confused and contradictory”.
It has been claimed that the Bill will assist community cohesion, but it will not; it will make community cohesion more difficult. As my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill said, it
“could have a negative effect”
and, as my noble friend Lord Oates said, it will not “combat anti-Semitism”.
Three tests should be applied to any proposed Bill: what problem are Government are trying to solve? Is what is proposed a solution to that problem? What consequential problems might arise if the Bill becomes an Act? In my view, the Bill fails all three tests and we have heard compelling evidence of that from many speakers. I have reached the conclusion that the Bill is too complex, too unwieldy and, in practice, unworkable. It would require a huge bureaucracy to underpin it, at huge cost, with enforcement authorities with powers to issue monetary fines and all the judicial reviews arising from that process. The Bill is not proportionate.
The Government’s own impact assessment for the Bill says:
“The number of actual or attempted boycotts or divestments inconsistent with UK foreign policy is relatively low”.
The Minister has referred to six; in the impact assessment, six are mentioned. But attempted boycotts or disinvestments are just that—unsuccessful attempts. How many have actually happened? How many have actually been successful? It would help if the Minister, when she replies or perhaps later, gives the House a list of all the public bodies and public authorities which have boycotted or disinvested from an overseas country, including Israel, on political grounds, so we can understand the true extent of the problem the Government have identified.
Universities UK has expressed concerns about the unintended consequence for the higher education sector. Universities are not public bodies, and I have concluded that universities should not be part of the Bill, as indeed we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Johnson of Marylebone, and others. I say that for three reasons. First, it could influence the outcome of the ongoing ONS review into universities’ status and whether they should or should not be defined as public bodies. Secondly, Clause 4 contradicts duties placed on universities via the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom; I have concluded that Clause 4 should be deleted from the Bill. Thirdly, it would give significant new powers and functions to the Office for Students, but is it able to take those on, given all the other duties it has?
I turn to pensions. It is not necessary for the Bill to apply to pensions. The Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022 already gives the Secretary of State powers to issue guidance to pension schemes not to make investment decisions that conflict with UK foreign and defence policy.
In terms of the Local Government Pension Scheme, in a Supreme Court judgment in 2020 the Government were criticised for thinking that the scheme administrators were
“part of the machinery of the state”.
They are not; they do not manage public money. It is a funded scheme, paid for by contributions made by 15,500 participating employers and 7.1 million pension scheme members. Legislation already exists which prevents the Local Government Pension Scheme decision-makers from expressing political disapproval of a territory in making an investment decision. It contains sufficient enforcement mechanisms. Regulations exist which require administering authorities to publish an investment strategy statement, which must be in accordance with official guidance from the Secretary of State. Why do we need this Bill?
The Local Government Pension Scheme is a well-funded scheme with very few regulatory cases for a scheme of its size—with over 7 million members and assets of over £360 billion. The Government’s role is to provide clear guidance to the Local Government Pension Scheme, setting out their foreign policy aims and objectives so that scheme managers can undertake their duties investing in and stewarding global markets.
More broadly, existing legislation is sufficient. I am very grateful for the excellent Library briefing on the Bill. Section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988 already prohibits local authorities from taking non-commercial considerations into account in procurement decisions. They cannot take into account considerations of country or territory of origin of the contractor or their supplies. The Bill would then extend restrictions to cover investments as well as procurement, so I will comment on local government investment policy. Treasury management investments by councils are made largely within the United Kingdom. Where there are investments internationally, the key considerations are return and risk, rather than non-commercial considerations. The Bill will make no significant difference to that process.
Many speakers have pointed out that the Bill would restrict free speech of both public bodies and elected representatives. Clauses 4 and 7 would block discussion of actions against any foreign state. They would impact on freedom of speech and extend the powers of the state to inform itself about discussions within autonomous bodies, as my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire pointed out. Do the Government really mean for that to happen?
Finally, the Constitution Committee has done a very good job in suggesting to the House that it may wish to consider whether Clause 4 should be removed from the Bill. It said:
“In our view, clauses 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) unduly limit freedom of speech by preventing public bodies from stating that they would or even might make a procurement or investment decision in contravention of clause 1 had it been lawful to do so”.
There are other conclusions that the Select Committee has made which I support, and which I hope we can debate in Committee.
I say to the Minister and the Government more generally that I wish central government would trust local government a bit more. As my noble friend Lady Janke said, local government is not an outpost of central government.
We shall investigate all these issues in Committee, but I will just point out that if we were to take out Clause 4; if universities were not to be part of the Bill; if the pension problems the Government think exist and which I think do not exist are also taken out; if the role of local authority procurement policy is properly understood; and if we recognise that there is not much overseas investment by local authorities as part of their investment portfolios, there really is nothing much left in the Bill for us to talk about. For that reason, the Government should take a long, hard look at what they are trying to do.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I will start by making one thing very clear, as my noble friend Lady Chapman did in her opening speech: Labour has consistently opposed the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions campaign against the State of Israel. We do so because we recognise, as many noble Lords have said in the debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, that some people have used the cover of BDS to whip up hate towards Jewish people, to seek to hold Israel to different standards from other countries, to question its right to exist, and to equate the actions of the Israeli Government with Jewish people. That is utterly wrong.
Anti-Semitism is a scourge on our society that all political parties—I am sure we can unite across the House on this—should stand together in opposing and eradicating. I agree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, that greater effort should be put into education and into winning people to the arguments we have heard in the debate. This legislation simply is not supporting that fight against anti-Semitism.
We have consistently put forward an alternative solution to address the very real concerns over BDS. We have tabled amendments, most recently to the Procurement Bill as it was progressing. We sought to ensure that the Bill—the Act, as it now is—would prevent councils from singling out Israel. We said that public bodies should be able to take ethical decisions, but that these must be consistent with their investment and procurement policy, within a framework based on principles that applied equally to all countries, rather than singling out individual nations. That was a principle that was rejected, sadly, by the Government when we put it forward in the Procurement Bill.
As my noble friend Lady Chapman said, we hope that, when we move through the stages of this Bill, we can seek a consensus. What I have heard across this debate is that, whether you support BDS or oppose it, the Bill has significant problems—concerns have been raised across the Chamber. As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, just mentioned, many of those concerns were reported by the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House, particularly the draconian restrictions on free speech. Its report states:
“The protection of free speech is a fundamental right”.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, it is clear in its view that
“clauses 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) unduly limit freedom of speech by preventing public bodies from stating that they would or even might make a procurement or investment decision in contravention of clause 1 had it been lawful to do so.
That is unbelievable. It is rather ironic that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and I seem to constantly face draft Bills from this Government that have a Clause 4 that we seek to oppose. I never thought that would happen to me, but there we go. As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, the committee made a powerful case that Clause 4 should be removed from the Bill. I am sure that will be an important consideration in Committee.
The Constitution Committee also called for more precise guidance about how Clause 4(1)(b) would be applied in practice. Again, in my experience as a trade union official over many years, and certainly in the Labour movement, I have heard many times the term “speaking in a personal capacity”, and I know what it means. It means, “I don’t want to be held accountable for what I decide. I may be general secretary but, on this occasion, I want to advocate something else”. It is absolutely crazy that there is this sort of ambiguity in proposed legislation. It is dangerous stuff.
The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, asked how the requirements in Clause 4 will be balanced with the duties under Section 1 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. I am not going to repeat those arguments.
Those are the areas that we absolutely need to scrutinise and challenge in Committee. I hope that we have not only significant amendments but probing amendments, because there is so much in this Bill we simply do not understand. Noble Lords have constantly questioned the loose term “public bodies”. What constitutes a public body? Suddenly, the principle in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act about the unique nature of our universities is now thrown out of the window. How many public bodies are we are talking about? The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, told me it could be tens of thousands. The Minister, in a throwaway remark, talked about schools and nursery schools, and any body that receives its full financing from the Government. It is something we need to scrutinise in detail.
The Constitution Committee expressed serious concern about the Bill’s roughshod approach, as it called it, to devolution, with no explicit consultation with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. The committee recommends—again, I hope the Minister will be able to respond to this point tonight—that the Government make a statement during the passage of the Bill on why consultation did not happen. Will she commit to keeping the House informed of any ensuing consultation, irrespective of whether we require legislative consent? The fundamental issue is what we have done in consulting and engaging with the devolved Governments. Clearly, nothing has happened. I hope the Minister will be able to address that properly today.
Despite what the Minister said in her introduction, this is clearly a threat to actions in support of persecuted people across the world. My noble friend Lord Hendy is right: when Governments inhibit human rights, the first institutions they attack and the things they undermine the most—this is certainly what we see in Russia—are civil society and workers’ rights, by banning trade unions, voices, churches and the sorts of institutions that act as a safeguard against the actions of Governments. Civil society is one of the most important parts of our democracy. It seems to me that this Bill will totally undermine that if a public body says that it does not agree with the repression in Xinjiang or with a state that bans trade unions or any of the things that we have signed up to in UN and ILO conventions. I think this is very dangerous.
The most important element, which noble Lords have spoken about, is the chilling effect of Clause 1 on public bodies, which have a duty under the Procurement Act to make ethical investment decisions and take actions that support the upholding of international law, democracy and human rights. The problem is that the Bill is both incoherent with and waters down the Procurement Act 2023. The Procurement Act sets key objectives for covered procurement, including supporting public benefit and
“acting, and being seen to act, with integrity”.
The Act also gives a mandate to commissioning authorities to award contracts based on
“the most advantageous tender submitted”.
That is a change, moving away from the priority under the previous procurement regime of the most economically advantageous tender. Why was that change made? Perhaps the Minister can explain precisely that. We heard in the debate that it was to ensure that contracting authorities gave more weight to award criteria such as decent work and wider social value. This Bill is clearly going to undermine and attack that. This is inconsistency. We should not put up with this sort of thing from a Government in such a short period of time.
I want to conclude on a very important point that has been raised by many noble Lords: in diplomatic terms, the most damaging part of the Bill is that it treats the Occupied Palestinian Territories as though they were in effect the same as the State of Israel. As we have heard—I will not repeat the arguments—this runs counter to a long-established policy of all Governments of this country and to the decisions of the United Nations when we not only supported but drafted the resolutions. It is incredible that we have done this. For the Government to be legislating to breach the UN resolution that they voted for and drafted is difficult to understand.
It is hard to understand how any Foreign Secretary has allowed such a Bill to proceed in its current form. My noble friend Lord Grocott is absolutely right. I supported the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in his statements last week on how we give hope to the Palestinian people about a future in which we can guarantee the security of Israel with a secure Palestinian state. That is fundamental. I hope that we will get a better understanding about who is in control here. Foreign policy should be a matter for the Foreign Secretary and not for the Levelling Up Secretary.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to today’s debate in support of the Bill, including my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lords, Lord Stevens of Birmingham and Lord Verdirame. I hope to convince many more noble Lords to do the same during our Committee discussions. Valuable contributions have been made today from all sides of the House. I would like to address the main themes of what has been a hotly contested debate and some of the questions raised by noble Lords.
Anti-Semitism is often referred to as the world’s oldest hatred; unfortunately, it is still very much alive. Since the 7 October attacks, we have seen a surge in anti-Semitic incidents in the UK. The Community Security Trust recorded its highest-ever total of anti-Semitic incidents in 2023, and 66% of these incidents occurred after 7 October. Many British Jews are understandably scared. Some Jewish schools in London even temporarily closed their doors over security fears.
Now more than ever, the Government should be taking steps to stop behaviour that could legitimise or even drive anti-Semitism. This is what the Bill does. The BDS movement is pernicious and has no place in our public institutions. That is why the Bill has been widely supported by the Jewish community in the UK. It has been endorsed by the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
The reasons for this were persuasively outlined by my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, citing some telling examples from the UN, local government, supermarkets and universities. I am very grateful to him for coming to make the case against BDS, and doing it so clearly. Boycott and divestment campaigns undermine community cohesion and can confuse the Government’s foreign policy, so it is vital that we deal with this issue as we promised in the 2019 manifesto.
We have taken care to keep the scope of the Bill narrow, so that it applies only to the procurement and investment decisions of public authorities, as defined in Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Legislation brought forward in other countries on this issue, such as in some states of the United States, has gone beyond this.
I have read the report on the Bill that was prepared by the Constitution Committee and referenced by the noble Lords, Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and I thank the committee for its useful contribution to this debate. I will take the opportunity to respond to some of the points that it raised, and to tackle points that have been raised during this debate.
First, concerns were raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Chapman of Darlington and Lady Janke, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and others, about Clause 4, which prohibits public authorities from making statements indicating that they intend to boycott or divest, or would if it were legal to do so. This provision is a vital addition to the Bill. Such statements can be just as divisive as boycotts that are implemented, and have been widely condemned by Jewish groups. As expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, it is vital that the prohibition also applies to statements indicating that a public authority would boycott if it were legal to do so. This is because, in 2014, Leicester City Council passed a resolution saying it would boycott produce from Israeli settlements in so far as legal consideration allowed. Community cohesion was, of course, at the heart of the party’s manifesto commitment, and that is essential to fulfilling it.
I explained in my opening remarks that that provision will not prevent elected officials, such as local councillors, expressing their support for boycotts or divestment campaigns. The distinction has been made clear in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes, so it is not necessary to state that in the Bill. The Bill will restrict individuals from making these statements only when speaking on behalf of a public authority, which do not have human rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. The clause has been drafted narrowly and will not in any way prevent public authorities making statements on foreign policy that do not express the intent to boycott or divest.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, asked what would happen if an academic expressed their support for a boycott at the same time as their university breached the ban, and how that would be investigated. An academic would be considered to be speaking on behalf of the university in the context of the Bill only if they had a role in the university’s decision- making process for public investment and procurement decisions, which I hope deals with her point.
The noble Lords, Lord Hain, Lord Boateng, Lord Davies of Brixton and Lord Oates, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, among others, raised their concern that this Bill would have prohibited local authorities from boycotting South Africa in the 1980s, and mentioned their own activities at the time. However, the movement to boycott South Africa was successful because of a concerted international effort led by Governments across the world. Although public authorities played a role—
Lord Boateng (Lab)
The Prime Minister of Great Britain at the time, Margaret Thatcher, consistently opposed boycotts in every international forum and consistently opposed the role of local government, churches, trade unions and others in extolling the virtue of boycotts. She was totally opposed to boycotts. The Minister really must take care in these assertions, because what she said simply does not bear any examination at all.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I was going to say that, although public authorities and individuals played a role, it was by acting in concert with the UK Government that we were able to pressure the South African Government—
Lord Boateng (Lab)
The UK Government consistently opposed local authorities. It is simply not true to say that the GLC or any other local authority acted in concert with Margaret Thatcher’s Government. That is nonsense.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
We will move on. Obviously, I agree that the history of—
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
On that point, if can help the Minister, I represented this country at the United Nations at the time and what the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, says is totally accurate.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
We will move on. I was just going to say that it was amazing that the change happened in South Africa. I remember visiting it in the 1990s, after the change.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I am sorry to intervene, but we cannot let that go. If that was in the Minister’s notes, they are absolutely wrong. I am afraid I think an apology is necessary.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I said what I said with due advice and knowledge. I take the points that have been made.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I am sorry to detain the House. Not only do I endorse everything that my noble friend Boateng said, but the American Government under President Reagan also opposed boycott action. It was only the Black Caucus in Congress forcing through the loan sanctions in the late 1980s that accelerated the decline of apartheid. Virtually every Government in Europe and right across the world, including white Commonwealth countries, opposed boycott action in every respect. If the Minister’s officials are feeding her this nonsense, she should not simply repeat it.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I will certainly look into this further and perhaps we can come back to it on another occasion.
Perhaps me could move on, in the interests of time, to climate change. I would like to clarify that the Bill will ban only considerations that are country-specific. It will therefore not prevent public local authorities divesting from fossil fuels or other campaigns that are not country-specific.
The Bill will not prevent public authorities accounting for social value in their procurement decisions, the reform mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Collins— of course, we worked together on moving to most advantageous tenders; that is a change that has come about. For example, authorities might structure their procurement so as to give more weight to bids that create jobs or promote animal welfare. Moreover, the Bill contains an exception to the ban for considerations that relate to environmental misconduct, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned.
To answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, there was official-level engagement with the devolved Administrations on the Bill’s provisions before it was introduced to the other place through the common frameworks working groups process. Senior official engagement on the Bill dates back to April 2022. The Minister for this Bill in the other place, who I saw witnessing our proceedings earlier this evening, has also engaged with responsible Ministers in Scotland and Wales. We intend to engage with Ministers in Northern Ireland now that power has been restored.
The Government have never set out to legislate without consent. We formally sought consent from all the devolved legislatures. Where the legislative consent process is engaged, we always tend to legislate with the support of the devolved Administrations and the consent of the devolved Parliaments. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, highlighted, boycotts and divestments against foreign countries or territories are a matter of foreign policy. This Bill relates to foreign affairs and international relations, which are reserved matters, but I am sure we will come back to this point in Committee.
I turn to the Bill’s enforcement powers. I start by clarifying that the Bill does not create any new criminal offences, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. They are not criminal offences. Moreover, these enforcement powers are not unprecedented: the regime is based on existing enforcement regimes, such as the powers given to the Office for Students in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. Clause 7 is a necessary addition to the Bill to ensure that enforcement authorities have the necessary information to assess whether there has been a breach of the ban. It would not make sense to implement a ban with a toothless enforcement regime but, again, I am sure that we will discuss enforcement further in Committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, and the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, Lord Willetts, Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Lord Johnson of Marylebone, questioned why the ban needs to apply to universities. This ban will ensure that any public authority, including universities in scope of the Bill performing public functions, can maintain their focus on their core purpose rather than taking partisan stances that undermine community cohesion.
It is not appropriate for those institutions to have a corporate view on a matter of foreign policy in the context of their public investment and procurement functions. That risks stifling the academic freedom of individual members of staff to take positions on foreign policy. However, I note the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Johnson, Lord Willetts, Lord Shipley, and others on the ONS reclassification of universities. I will come back to noble Lords on this issue in Committee, once I have consulted other Ministers.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, regarding public investment and private investment, a lot of our universities have very substantial endowments. Will the Minister clarify that these are well outside the Bill’s remit? When they take decisions on investment and procurement from their private investment funds, they are acting privately and not publicly.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
That is my sense, but I will obviously check where we are. I would also make it clear that things such as conference centres and so on are obviously outside the remit. I will come back to the noble Lord on the exact definition, if I may, and we can perhaps discuss it in Committee in any event.
I will now address concerns that this Bill represents a change in the UK’s foreign policy. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and others, will be pleased to know that the Government have been clear throughout the Bill’s passage that nothing in this Bill changes the UK’s position on Israeli settlements. They are illegal under international law, present an obstacle to peace and threaten the viability of a two-state solution. The Government continue to urge Israel to halt settlement expansion immediately.
I reassure the House that the Government’s assessment is that the Bill distinguishes between Israel and the territories it has occupied since 1967. It is therefore compliant with UN Security Council Resolution 2334. The Government believe very strongly in the importance of complying with international obligations under the UN Charter.
Lord Oates (LD)
Could the Minister tell us how the Bill distinguishes this, because the clause applies to them all equally? Could she set that out?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The instructions for the drafting were to ensure the distinction and compliance. The Bill sets these out individually and I understand that it is compliant. The Government believe very strongly in the importance of compliance.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
The Minister says it is her understanding that this applies. I think her understanding is inadequate on this issue because there is nothing in this Bill that makes a clear distinction between the Occupied Territories and Israel itself. Perhaps she could come back to the House, or write to us all, when she has clarified this and set out exactly where this distinction is made.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I would be happy to do that and to discuss these clauses in Committee, in the usual way. The Bill does not break international law and will not compel any public authority—
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
This is not just a matter of waiting for Committee; this is a matter of clearing up something very fundamental following questions that have been raised at Second Reading.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I made it clear that it is compliant. I will write a letter setting that out in the coming days.
As many noble Lords have said, there has been a rising problem of anti-Semitism since 7 October. I believe we now need this Bill all the more and that it is important to protect community cohesion.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for his kind remarks and his helpful discussion on his concerns with the exception to the ban for considerations that a public body deems relevant to international law. This exception is necessary to ensure that public authorities are not forced to make a decision which could put the UK in breach of its obligations under international law. Public authorities cannot have their own subjective views on what constitutes a breach of international law. They must reasonably consider the decision relevant to the UK’s obligations under international law.
I now turn to China, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, raised the matter. The Procurement Act, which we worked on together, will further strengthen our approach to exclude suppliers where there is clear evidence of the involvement of forced labour or other modern slavery practices. This Bill will not prevent public bodies conducting due diligence and considering the location of suppliers when assessing modern slavery risk and will not prevent public bodies adhering to modern slavery guidelines. We will continue to keep our policy response under review. The Bill’s power to exempt a particular country or territory from its provisions will allow the scope of the Bill to evolve in line with the UK Government’s foreign policy.
Additionally, concerns have been raised around how the Bill will impact the ability of public authorities to protect against human rights abuses. It is the Government’s view that allowing for blanket exclusions of suppliers because they are based in a particular country, for an undisclosed period, is disproportionate and unfair on suppliers from those countries which operate fairly and ethically. However, I can assure Members of the House that the Bill will not prevent public authorities disregarding suppliers involved in human rights abuses on a non-country specific basis. Public bodies should not be pursuing country-specific campaigns.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
Can the Minister explain how that works? If a public authority decided that it would not trade with any supplier which banned trade unions or the right to strike, and, subsequently, a tender came in from China, could it or could it not, under the Bill, decide not to accept such a tender?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I do not entirely understand the question, but I am happy to research that and come back. The basic point is that public bodies should not be pursuing country-specific campaigns, as foreign policy is a matter for the UK Government alone—but obviously we need to understand the details in the supply chain.
Additionally, the Bill contains an exception to the ban for various considerations where the Government have assessed it appropriate for public authorities to make territorial considerations influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct, including considerations relevant to labour market misconduct, which was a concern of the noble Lord.
Bodies that administer the Local Government Pension Scheme are captured by the definition of “public authorities” in Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and it is therefore appropriate for that decision to be captured. For example, a UN special rapporteur wrote to the LGPS in November 2021 demanding divestment from a number of Israeli companies, and the demand cited its ability to play a “transformational role”. I think we can agree that the role of local authorities is to manage the assets to deliver benefits to members.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, asked whether the pension fund Nest and the PPF are in scope of the Bill. The only pension funds the Bill will apply to are those in the Local Government Pension Scheme, so they are not within scope.
There was a long conversation about the application of the Bill—which bodies it applies to. It will apply to public authorities, as defined in Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This definition has been in statute for 25 years and sets the scope for the application of fundamental legislation.
Indicative factors that were relevant to judges’ previous decisions on the issue include the body receiving a significant amount of public funding, the body carrying out acts in exercise of statutory powers and the body providing a public service. I encourage any institution that is unsure whether it is bound by Section 6 of the HRA to seek independent advice, but I have noted various questions on scope that we may come back to in Committee, because there were some useful contributions on that, including from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.
I clarify that the Bill’s Short Title provides a general indication of its subject matter, and it is clear that it applies only to public authorities, as defined in Section 6 of the Human Rights Act.
This legislation delivers an important manifesto commitment. It will ensure that the UK has a consistent foreign policy approach and speaks with one voice internationally. I have not had time to answer every point, but I have been listening carefully. I look forward to working with noble Lords throughout the passage of the Bill to deliver this important legislation and to continue to engage on the various knotty and important issues that have been raised today. I commend the Bill to the House.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule, Clauses 4 to 17, Title.
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill
Wednesday 20th March 2024
(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 38-I(b) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (20 Mar 2024)
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that political and moral disapproval must be seen to be a central factor and not a supplementary consideration in any relevant decision.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, as we are starting Committee, I will say a few things about how we should handle the Bill from now on. After Second Reading and the Commons stages, during which there were a large number of sharp criticisms from Conservatives, as well as others, about the quality of the drafting and the coverage of the Bill, I would have expected the Government, between Second Reading and Committee, to have produced a number of government amendments to clarify some of the many imprecisions in the Bill and perhaps to have arranged to meet some of us who had spoken at Second Reading. I am sorry that that has not happened, and I very much hope that, between Committee and Report, the Government will respond to some of the criticisms by bringing forward clarifying amendments, and that the Minister and the Bill team will be willing to meet with us to discuss some of the arrangements.
The lack of engagement is troubling, and the absence of government amendments at this stage is extremely worrying. I recognise that this is very much a Michael Gove Bill and that he, as Secretary of State, probably wishes to get it through, if possible, without amendment. But here we are in the amending House, and the Minister also has a duty, as a Lords Minister, to listen to and engage with the reasoned criticisms made of the many highly imprecise elements in this Bill, and to respond.
I have two amendments in this group. One raises the question of what is meant by “political or moral disapproval”, and whether the word “influenced” in the phrase
“influenced by political and moral disapproval”
is sufficient. The second, Amendment 6, refers to
“any person seeking to persuade the decision-maker”,
as well as the decision-maker.
As the Minister will know, environmental, social and corporate governance has a long history. It goes back to the Sullivan principles from the United States, which I am sure she will remember. They were formulated by Mr Sullivan, a director of General Motors, in the context of apartheid South Africa and set out a number of principles that companies and others should follow when dealing with investments and procurement. Those principles have since expanded into the whole ESG dimension, which we see actively discussed in Britain, the United States and a number of other market economy countries. The right wing in the United States is busily attacking them in favour of what one has to describe as an amoral capitalism, in which profit is the only thing you are ever allowed to think about. I recall that the first person who started attacking the Sullivan principles was Professor Milton Friedman, who strongly believed that companies have no other duties than to pursue the greatest profit possible for their shareholders.
We need to know what is meant by
“influenced by moral or political disapproval”.
My Amendment 1 suggests that it has to be very considerable in order to be a primary cause of the decision, not simply something that comes in as, or can be argued under Clause 5 to have been—we will get to that later in terms of judicial review—part of the reasons why the decision was taken.
One of our many worries about the Bill is the extent to which it opens the door to litigation through a great many of its imprecise terms. The question, therefore, is whether or not any indication of political or moral disapproval begins to get captured under the Bill, or whether this has to be the major reason why such a decision is taken.
I was very struck as I went through the impact assessment and the Explanatory Memorandum by the sheer lack of evidence that much of this has happened. We find a reference to a council that in 2014 discussed whether or not to, and that another council in 2016 discussed whether or not to. Neither of them actually did it, but they discussed it. “That is wrong and we should stop them doing things like that” seems to be a pretty thin basis on which to mount a Bill that has the sorts of penalties which this Bill begins to set out. That is very much part of our concerns.
Amendment 6 raises the question of whether it is not only the decision-maker who is going to be liable but
“any person seeking to persuade the decision-maker”.
Does that mean that the Guardian journalist who writes an editorial suggesting that this should be done is going to be caught by it? Does it mean that the lobby group that sends things to the decision-maker is going to be caught by it? Does it have to be a more direct approach? How do we identify that “any person”? This is the sort of drafting that should not appear in a Bill before this House. It has to be clarified or we shall do our utmost to remove it. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
I speak to exactly the same issue as did my noble friend. Mine is a simpler amendment. I work on the basis that the Bill will pass in some form or another and if one does a modest, sensible tweak to a Bill, it has a chance of being incorporated into the final version. My Amendment 2 —purely adds one word: “materially”. This would raise the threshold that needs to be met before a decision is deemed to be in breach of this prohibition. If it is not “materially”, things could be prohibited for something very minor. Having “materially” improves the Bill and makes it more logical—we are looking at things of substance, not things that are minor.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I rise merely to ask my noble friend the Minister to be very careful about her responses to this. I have a huge problem in that I cannot think of a speech that I have made in this House in which there has not been some moral content, because that is the way I think. I cannot help that. I am very concerned about the clarity with which the Bill is written. My noble friend and I go back a very long way. I have to say to her that when she was a civil servant working with me, she would not have produced a Bill like this. She would have been very angry if I had suggested that it should be as loose as all this. I am sorry to remind her of that fact. All I am interested in is that we do not unhappily and by accident cause a whole lot of legal cases that are unnecessary and which we never meant to.
I have some fundamental problems, not least with the specifics of this. I may wish at some later point to discuss the speech that was made at Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Wolfson, but the first point I want to make has nothing to do with the nature of the Bill itself or what it seeks to do. It is about precision. This is an imprecise Bill and it needs to be precise if it is not to be extremely malignant. All I ask is for my noble friend to try to understand that we need precision here, even those of us who in general do not come here with an antagonistic view. We just want to know what it is about, and you do not understand that if you merely read the Bill. I do not want this constantly to be in the courts. It would be much better to get it right now.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Amendments 3 to 5 are in my name. All the amendments in this group have the same objective, which is to find some ways of mitigating the rather unusual and perhaps slightly sinister language of
“political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct”—
the language that gives the provision its title. Amendments 1 and 2 seek to achieve that objective by retaining that concept but raising the bar for its application. I agree that this approach may be sensible, and it is one that I encourage the Government to consider very seriously.
My amendments go a little further. I tried to think of ways in which the main provision of the Bill—Clause 1 —could operate without the novel concept of a prohibition on
“being influenced by political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct”.
I note that this is not an attempt to frustrate the Bill. As the Minister will recall, I spoke in support of the Bill at Second Reading and I support the Government’s intentions. I am suggesting this different way forward because I am not really persuaded that the policy objectives require us to introduce this concept in our legislation. I urge the Government to test more proportionate and more focused ways to achieve those objectives.
As I understand those objectives, the core purpose is to ensure that public bodies, when taking procurement or investment decisions, do not impose a de facto sanctions regime or a de facto ban or boycott on a foreign state on the basis of their own judgments about a territorial dispute, the status of a foreign territory or the presence of a foreign Government in a particular territory. It seems to me that that objective can be achieved equally effectively by focusing the duty in Clause 1 on not having regard to territorial considerations, rather than in the current formulation of a duty not to be influenced by political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct. Subject to the exceptions, it would still be the case that if a public authority were to have regard to a territorial consideration, it would probably do so because of disapproval of a moral or political kind of the foreign state’s conduct in the territory. But it would be better if we can get to the result that the Government are pursuing without that language of political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct.
I accept that a criticism of the proposals may be that if we remove that expression “moral or political disapproval” from Clause 1, as my amendments would do, and focus instead on territorial considerations, the main provision of the Bill would not substantially improve on Section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988.
The Bill would supersede the Local Government Act in the part where it prohibits local authorities from considering non-commercial matters in relation to decisions about public supply or works contracts, including
“the country or territory of origin of supplies to, or the location in any country or territory of the business activities or interests of, contractors”.
This part of Section 17 of the Local Government Act would be omitted by the effect of a separate clause in the Bill. But Clause 1, even with the amendment I propose, would still go further than Section 17. In particular, the duty not to have regard to foreign state conduct in relation to territorial considerations, such as the existence of a territorial dispute, would still be able to capture indirect bans or boycotts, which I understand is the Government’s main concern.
I look forward to what the Government have to say. Again, I stress that my main concern is to encourage them to think of ways of tightening the language in Clause 1, and mitigating or perhaps altogether removing this notion of
“political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct”.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for my not being able to speak at Second Reading, although if I had, I would have agreed with my noble friend Lord Wolfson on much of what he had to say. I also apologise for slightly jumping the gun on the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, particularly as what he said was so interesting and informative.
I just wanted to question Amendment 1. If one is seeking clarity and certainty, introducing the idea of having a
“primary or sole factor in the decision”
seems extremely difficult to prove, whereas showing that the decision was “influenced” is much easier and, as I understand it, a recognised legal term.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have problems with all the amendments in this group. Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, would elevate “political or moral disapproval” to be the sole or main factor, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, wants to introduce the concept of materiality into influence. Both these would just create huge loopholes, which would allow public bodies to conceal their boycott activities within other factors. Clever lawyers would find ways of writing papers which support decision-making in, say, local authorities or other bodies affected by the Bill, by reference to a whole load of other factors, to support the claim that they were not “materially” influenced by their disapproval of a foreign state, or that it was not the sole or main factor. I genuinely have a problem with the watering-down implied by Amendments 1 and 2.
I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said about his amendments. I understand that he is trying to find a way through by removing the reference to “political or moral disapproval”, but I am not convinced that his amendments work either. In particular, I am not sure what the restriction to “that territory” in his Amendment 4 will do. Let us suppose that the territorial consideration is Ukraine, because it has to relate to a particular foreign territory by virtue of subsection (3). Does that mean that the decision-maker must have no regard to what is happening in Ukraine itself? It seems to me that “that territory” can be related only to the territorial consideration referenced in subsection (2). In that case, it would be Ukraine. If, say, Russia is the foreign state you have a problem with, it seems that you can take account of its activities only in Ukraine. You could not take account of activities that were not in Ukraine—for example, attacks from other places, such as the Black Sea, or whether it takes children from Ukraine back to Russia. If you thought that Russia was the territory—still restricting it to one territory—you have the problem the other way around; you could take activities only in Russia, but not in Ukraine, which is the fundamental problem. That creates an interpretive problem.
While these distinctions might not matter if we are talking about Russia and Ukraine, if you try and then relate it to a council or other public body trying to boycott Israel, and relate that to the complexities of the different parts of the territory around the State of Israel, you may end up finding some odd conclusions on how the reformulation might work in practice. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, is a very clever lawyer and I am not, and I may well have completely misunderstood how his amendment is intended to work.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, because this is the first group, I again state that I think that a lot of these amendments are trying to establish what is intended by the Bill, in a probing way. In that sense, they are very helpful for clarification on the language used. It was clear from Second Reading that most of the people who have since tabled these amendments and are speaking now are not in any way defending BDS; it was clear to me anyway. These boycott schemes are censorious and illiberal, and very often, as was stated at the time, the seeding ground for anti-Semitism in public life. In that sense, I oppose them; I am just not clear how the Bill will actually tackle them.
As we speak, just to use an example, the Rio Cinema in London has just cancelled its Eurovision party on the basis that it will not hold it while Israel still has somebody in the Eurovision Song Contest. I do not know whether this is self-declared BDS; it is a charity, and I am not quite sure how the Bill would apply. The point I kept trying to make at Second Reading was that, so often, I feel that the Bill will miss where a lot of the anti-Semitic censorship is occurring, around the periphery, rather than just in terms of divestment and investment, and so on.
I say that because those of us who are interested in tackling those issues need to have as much free speech as possible. I particularly support Amendment 6 from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire—although both his amendments are interesting—which makes the point about
“any person seeking to persuade the decision-maker”.
That is what politics is, is it not? Trying to persuade a decision-maker—lobbying and trying to have an influence on politics—is surely the job we are all in, even if we disapprove of, in this instance, what someone is trying to persuade about. I just get anxious about this being in a Bill; it sets a dangerous precedent.
Points have been made well by other noble Lords about the use of the language of political and moral disapproval; I want there to be far more political and moral disapproval in politics today than there is. It is an entirely good thing to make that clear. I wish there was a bit more “political and moral disapproval” leadership in general, even though many of us arguing that would disagree over what it should be. That is fair, but it is far better than a kind of technocratic approach. Also, if we are to win the hearts and minds of many of the young people who go along with BDS campaigns, we will have to show our political and moral disapproval, and win them over and seek to persuade them. Noble Lords get the point, but it is not clear how the language in the section to which these amendments refer will help us to tackle the problem that the Bill seeks to address.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I also wish to speak in support of Amendments 1 and 6 in the name of my noble friend Lord Wallace. As a former councillor, I can imagine that former colleagues will be absolutely horrified at the scope of the Bill. We are talking about how moral and political disapproval cannot be used as the basis of a decision. Many councillors get into politics because they have moral and political views—they want to change the world and do something about things in their own area. I would welcome clarity, as others have asked for, on how it is to be established whether a decision-maker has been
“influenced by political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct”.
What means might be used to actually determine this, in the event of needing to enforce action against it?
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have an entry in the register of interests. I seek clarity from the Minister. I may not need it, but I would like to tease it out, to see whether my interpretation of these clauses is correct. My question is about the word “decision”, and what the statutory understanding of that word is. My understanding is clarified by Clause 2(2), which says:
“A ‘procurement decision’ is a decision about a contract for the supply of goods, services or works to the decision-maker.”
That seems to me absolutely clear. I want to clarify if that is also the Minister’s understanding of what a decision in this context is.
I ask that because of an example from the University of Essex student union, which has a policy passed 15 or 16 years ago, described as a BDS policy, which is specifically targeted against the state of Israel. On the student union website that policy is deemed to be an educational policy to stimulate discussion and debate. But the student union, in applying the policy, has chosen specifically to address the purchasing of kosher food products, including those from Israel, in the student union shop.
In the context of the amendments, and in terms of how the general public might understand this, as well as those more directly impacted in the public sector and elsewhere, it would be helpful to know whether I am right in my understanding that the University of Essex student union policy, which has not been turned into a procurement decision, as defined in Clause 2(2), would not be covered by the Bill, because it is merely an educational policy, as opposed to a procurement and economic activity decision. To know that would be helpful in understanding what the scope of the Bill is and is not, and what the legal situation will be when it is enacted, as I presume it will be.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I spoke on Second Reading, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Deben for taking the trouble to read my speech. I wait with anticipation to find out the, no doubt very few, points on which we disagree. That will perhaps be for another day, but I look forward to it.
On these amendments I can be brief, because the central point has already been made: that the proposed amendments, especially those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, would add complexity and increase the likelihood of litigation; I declare the obvious interest in that respect. The amendments would therefore make the Bill not more precise but less.
I say that for three reasons. First, introducing words such as “primary or sole” is an invitation to litigation. My second short point—forgive the legal geekiness, but we are in Committee—is that a quick search of legislation.gov.uk indicates that that phrase does not appear anywhere else in legislation. “Sole or primary” does, so in case we go forward with this, I would invite the noble Lord to flip it round, so that we put the more general word “sole” first, followed by the word “primary”. That is not my main point, but as we are in Committee, which is the place for geeky legal points, I may have just made one.
Another amendment introduces the word “material”. That is a really problematic word in law, as are words such as “significant”, because we always have the debate about what the opposite of “material” is. Is it immaterial—that is, de minimis? In that case, that is not really, as I understand it, the force of the amendment. “Material” here really means “of substance”, and it is, I suggest, not a good word to use if one is seeking to get that point across.
However, my main point is that this part of the Bill is drafted clearly and that whether we add “primary or sole” or “material”, that would add complexity and invite more litigation.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I was going to intervene on the noble Lord, but he finished his speech before I could. Maybe we will have an opportunity when the Minister responds to the debate, because the idea that the words “moral” and “political” are not vague stuns me. Who is to define “moral”? That is very difficult.
This is one of the rare occasions in the House when I can honestly agree with practically all the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I also agree with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I want to stress that with the amendments, especially those to Clause 1, it is necessary to probe what the words mean, and get a better understanding of them. Even if I do not personally feel committed to the amendments, it is important to use this stage to elicit from the Minister a better understanding of the intent of Clause 1.
I do not want to repeat what the noble Baroness said, but this is not about how we address BDS strategies. The impact of the clause is far wider and encompasses a whole host of things that the Government may not have really intended. Who knows? Clause 1 does not define “political” or “moral”. It is extremely wide-ranging and could cover any decision or consideration that suggests a negative view of an existing, previous or potential policy action or inaction, or other behaviour associated with a Government or any public authority in another country.
As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, said, the reasonable observer of the decision-making process test sets an extremely low bar for considering whether a decision was influenced by political or moral disapproval. It does not distinguish between minor or significant influence, and it does not clearly define a reasonable observer. I hope we can use the amendments in this group to probe substantially on these issues.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that the consideration of financial, reputational, legal, environmental, social, governance and other risks in procurement and investment decisions are often complex and overlapping, and some considerations may be confidential. How are we going to sort all those things out if the Bill becomes law?
The legislation does not require the reasonable person to be someone who is familiar with the subject matter and decision-making processes. Clause 1(4) and 1(6) do not define a public authority in a foreign territory, so it could include state-run companies in some countries. This could result in additional uncertainty where the conduct of a public authority differs from the official policy of a foreign state, and that is a threat to actions in support of persecuted people across the world.
The sweeping approach to Clause 1 will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on public bodies being able to make ethical procurement and investment decisions and take actions that support upholding international law, democracy and human rights. I know I have an amendment later on, so I will not go into too much detail now.
As I mentioned at Second Reading, the Bill is incoherent and it waters down the Procurement Act 2023. That Act sets key objectives covered by procurement, including supporting public benefit, in Clause 12(1)(b), and acting and being seen to act with integrity, in Clause 12(1)(d). The Act also gave a mandate to commissioning authorities to award contracts based on the “most advantageous tender” submitted. That change of words moves away from the previous priority of the “most economically advantageous tender” under which the previous procurement regime existed. What was the intent of that change in language? The intent was to enable contracting authorities to give more weight to award criteria such as decent work and wider social values. Again, we are coming to other amendments, particularly about the environment.
This wide definition, which is covered in Clause 1, is the fundamental problem with the Bill. The Explanatory Notes state:
“Clause 1 prohibits relevant public authorities from having regard to a territorial consideration in a way that indicates moral or political disapproval of a country or territory’s foreign state conduct, when making decisions … This clause is designed to catch both open participation in boycotts”,
which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, talked about,
“or divestment campaigns, and more subtle ways of singling out countries or territories that could produce similar results”.
As I say, this sweeping approach will have a chilling effect and will impact on public authorities in upholding international law.
A point I want to focus on is that the UK Government have committed to implementing international standards, including the UN guiding principles on business and human rights—the UNGPs—as well as the commitment made in terms of the environment in the Paris agreement. Carrying out effective due diligence is central to public bodies, as state institutions, being able to fulfil their human rights obligations, implement UNGPs and make ethical procurement and investment decisions. However, because the terminology, such as “political and moral disapproval”, is undefined, this will create problems for public authorities when carrying out their due diligence. That is what will be needed in the due diligence process to avoid falling foul of this legislation, when clarity is so lacking.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments and for their contributions to the debate. I look forward to scrutinising the Bill and these proposed changes in detail during the four Committee days that we have set aside—although this one has been a little truncated. I remain open to listening to noble Lords’ views from all sides, and I hope we can use these sessions to put forward the best possible version of this legislation.
Clarity on all sides is important, and I look forward to further meetings with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, as the Bill progresses. He knows I enjoy meetings with him on the Bills that we have done together. Probing amendments are also important, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, has just said. We were of course both involved with the Procurement Act and I look forward to discussing how the two pieces of legislation interact and how human rights considerations are respected—as they are.
I hope that, in responding to these six amendments, I can assure the House that Clause 1 as currently drafted is the most proportionate and clear way of fulfilling the manifesto commitment of banning public bodies from imposing their own boycott and divestment campaigns.
Clause 1 sets out three tests that must be met to trigger the ban. First, the ban is narrow. It applies only to procurement or investment decisions. Secondly, the public body must have considered a specific territory or country as part of making its decision. Thirdly, that consideration must reflect political or moral disapproval of the conduct of a foreign state.
I turn first, if I may, to Amendments 3, 4 and 5, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. I am grateful for his general support. However, together, his amendments would alter the scope of the clause. Amendments 3 and 5 would prohibit public authorities from being influenced in any way by foreign state conduct. This would widen the prohibition in Clause 1 to include considerations that relate specifically or mainly to a country or territory in a way that is influenced by approval of foreign state conduct. The current drafting prohibits only disapproval of foreign state conduct, and the inclusion of moral and political disapproval is necessary to ensure that the Bill does not capture legitimate territorial considerations that are not about boycotts and divestment campaigns and would take the Bill beyond the manifesto commitment. An example of this would include encouraging trade with important trading partners. These amendments would therefore prohibit a public authority from favouring goods or services from a particular country or territory, based on approval of that country’s conduct. It therefore captures a broader range of decisions that are not relevant to boycotts and divestment campaigns.
Amendment 4, on the other hand, would narrow the prohibition so that it applied only in the case of disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct within its own territory. It would not apply in the case of disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct outside its territory. I agree with the comments made by my noble friend Lady Noakes: this would effectively allow public authorities to boycott countries whose foreign policy they disapproved of. This could leave a significant loophole—a word I think she used—in the ban and undermine the manifesto commitment.
I will now address Clause 1(7) in response to Amendment 6 by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. This amendment would permit public authorities to engage in boycotts and divestment campaigns as long as they were only a result of pressure from a third party, such as a student union, rather than a result of the public authority’s own moral or political disapproval. Subsection (7) is a necessary element of the Bill, as public authorities such as universities and local authorities are frequently pressured to engage in boycotts or divestment campaigns. For example, student unions at Warwick University and Sussex University have passed motions calling for their universities to divest from Israeli companies. If a university conducted a boycott or divestment campaign because of such pressure, rather than because of its own view of a foreign state, we would want that campaign to be caught. Subsection (7) extends to any person seeking to persuade the public authority. However, for there to be a breach of the ban, an enforcement authority must be satisfied that there is enough evidence that a third party influenced the public authority.
I will address the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, on decision-making, if she would agree, on group 2 because we are going to be discussing the meaning of a decision-maker for the purposes of the Bill.
Finally, and most importantly, I turn to Amendments 1 and 2, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill. Amendment 1 would narrow the scope of the prohibition in Clause 1 so that it prohibited public authorities from taking account of territorial considerations only where moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct is the “primary or sole” factor in the decision. My noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley asked a question which made this point, while my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar was concerned that it would increase uncertainty and lead to legal disputes.
Similarly, Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, would narrow the prohibition to decisions “materially” influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct. Like my noble friend Lord Wolfson, I do not agree with weakening the effect of the Bill in this way. Public authorities buying goods or services, or making investments, should not be influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct to any degree, unless—and this is important—one of the exemptions, such as environmental or labour misconduct, applies.
I reassure the Committee that Clause 1 will not capture fleeting and inconsequential remarks made during the procurement or investment decision-making process. The Bill prohibits only considerations that a reasonable observer of the decision-making process would consider a contributing factor to a decision.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
It is precisely that point I want to better understand, because many decisions are going to be complex. While the Minister mentioned the exclusion of things, there could be a combination of issues which would influence the final decision. Somebody might be able to say, “Actually, that combination has become a moral and political thing”. That is what really concerns me. The Minister is very confident that certain things will not be captured, but I do not see that. I would like her to explain in a little more detail that final point she made.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
We will try to do that. I am also happy to discuss this further, because it is obviously an important point in relation to the Bill and, as we agreed at the beginning, we need to try to find a way that does not create a lot of uncertainty.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, commented on the perceived lack of evidence for the Bill, but boycotts have been attempted by several public authorities in recent years. In 2014, Leicester City Council passed a motion boycotting goods from Israeli settlements, as far as the law allows. Several other local authorities have passed boycotting or condemnatory motions, including Swansea Council, Gwynedd Council—
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt, but on that point can the Minister tell us what the FCDO’s advice and the United Nations decisions are in relation to the Occupied Territories?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am certainly very happy to come back to that on a later group of amendments.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
But it is material to what the Minister has just said.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I will see if I can come back to it before we finish. I was trying to give the examples that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, had asked for. There was West Dunbartonshire Council and Stirling Council, and in 2021 Lancaster City Council passed a motion in support of the wider BDS movement.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I come back to the first point that the Minister made. It is really important that we are clear about this, because one concern we have mentioned—I am not going to make a Second Reading speech—is the impact that this Bill has on the United Kingdom’s foreign policy. If there is a discussion about goods from and investments in the Occupied Territories, she needs to explain why she has evidenced that and how it is supported by the FCDO’s own advice and the Government’s support for United Nations resolutions on that subject.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I can certainly provide more detail of the boycotts, if that is helpful.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
No, that is not what I am asking. The first example that the Minister gave was in relation to the Occupied Territories. I really think it is important that we understand why she has referenced that.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I was giving a list and I will certainly come back on that question. We have a group relating to the Occupied Territories later on, when we can go into this in more detail. If the noble Lord can give me a bit of slack, I will see if I can get fuller information and come back to that at the end.
I was trying to answer the question on evidence. If I may, I should also like to cite, from September 2023, Islington Council passing a motion in opposition to this Bill, expressing its support for BDS campaigns—which everybody has said that they are very unhappy about—and resolving to:
“Continue to ensure that our own ethical procurement strategy doesn’t include procuring goods and services produced by oppressive regimes”.
I have not covered all the BDS activity in public bodies, but I hope that this demonstrates to the noble Lord that there is a considerable evidence base.
Separately, I note the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, about student unions and the provision of kosher foods in universities. We are going to discuss that point. The noble Lord has tabled some interesting amendments on it in group 3.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My point was not in relation to the amendment; it was in relation to the fact that a significant number of people in the Jewish community have said to me that they anticipate one of the key benefits of this Bill being that student unions will not be able to debate and pass BDS resolutions. My understanding of how the Bill is written and how it has been framed is that what the University of Essex student union has done, whereby it deemed its policy to be an educational tool rather than a procurement decision, explicitly would not be covered by the Bill. That is important, because the expectation is coming from multiple sources within the Jewish community that that is what would happen. Can the Minister clarify whether I am wrong on this, because my reading of the Bill suggests that I am right that—whether one calls it a good thing or a loophole—it would not be covered by the Bill?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The noble Lord is right—student unions are not covered, and I think that I made that clear at Second Reading. It is private activity. Clearly, what matters is the influence on public bodies, which is what we are discussing today.
To come back on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, obviously the Government recognise the risks associated with economic and financial activities in those settlements. We do not support boycotts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Such boycotts are inherently divisive and could lead inadvertently to negative effects on Palestinians as well as undermining the aim of this Bill, which is to ensure that the UK speaks with one voice internationally. That does not change existing government guidance on doing business in those territories. The Government do not recognise the settlements as part of Israel, as the noble Lord knows, and we have already moved to ban those responsible for violence in the West Bank from the UK—there have been some recent sanctions.
I have tried to answer the probing amendments. I hope that this provides noble Lords with clarification and a rationale for the scope of Clause 1, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I am slightly better informed. We have many difficulties with this Bill. I must say that it would be much easier if it were simply a Bill about boycott of Israel and mainly about sanctions. It would be narrower, and we would know what we were talking about. But it is a Bill that is supposed to apply to every single foreign state in the world except for Ireland, which raises very large questions.
I disapprove strongly of the Rwandan Government’s support for M23 in the Congo civil war, and I disapprove very strongly of Myanmar’s behaviour towards the Rohingya, et cetera. Clause 1 is entitled “Disapproval of foreign state conduct prohibited”, which is itself a very uneasy label and not the sort of thing that ought to appear in legislation. I believed that I lived in a liberal democracy in which government’s reach was limited and free speech, as Conservative Peers are always telling us, is entrenched, and one is allowed to dissent. This appears to be extending the reach of government.
I appreciate that this is a DLUHC Bill that is aimed primarily at local authorities, although it is extended to include universities—and whether it includes student unions we will investigate further. As it happens, I had the current president of the Cambridge Students’ Union here last Wednesday, and I showed him a copy of the Bill—and he was convinced that it would apply to student unions; it is quite clear that some people would like it to do so.
There is a great deal more that we need to find out about all this. The closing down of public debate that the Bill implies is something that worries all of us a great deal. I am happy to withdraw my amendment for a moment, but we shall return to all these questions extensively as we move from one imprecise clause to another.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
Member's explanatory statement
The inclusion of the word “materially” would raise the threshold that would need to be met before a decision was deemed to be in breach of this prohibition.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My amendment was of a probing nature. I am grateful to the Minister for giving more detail. As we go forward with the Bill, I shall be particularly interested to see how “materially”—the word that I tried to add—is looked at in terms of local authority pension funds. That worries me, because they make their investment decisions. There needs to be a material point, otherwise those investment decisions can be upset very easily by the Bill.
Lord Verdirame
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, along with two other amendments in my name, seeks to focus the prohibition in Section 1 on territorial considerations in connection with foreign state conduct, rather than political or moral approval of foreign state conduct, as this is a more proportionate way of achieving the policy objective.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
I too shall not move my amendment, but I reiterate the point that it would be quite helpful if the Government gave some thought to that language that makes so many of us across the political spectrum, given the level of support for Bill, uncomfortable. Do we really need political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct as a central concept in Clause 1? I would be grateful if further thought could be given to that question.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to seek clarity on when an individual is considered to be the decision maker for the purposes of this bill.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, it might be helpful to explain that most, if not all, the amendments we have tabled reflect the fact that we find this quite a difficult Bill to amend in a way that would make it work because, as many noble Lords have already said, it is very wide-ranging and quite vague in many of its terms. Our amendments are mostly intended to elicit not a response from the Minister to the amendments as such, but an explanation of the Bill’s intention, so that we are clear, or as clear as we can be, about exactly how the Bill is intended to be interpreted. This group of amendments is more about who the Government wish to catch with the measures in the Bill, and how it will work. Through these amendments, we want to tease out how the Government will decide who will be subject to enforcement action.
Amendment 7 would remove lines 20 to 22 in Clause 1:
“and those references to the decision-maker include, in a case where the decision-maker is not an individual”—
I assume that that means a local authority, a university or some other public body—
“the individuals who in fact make the decision for the decision-maker”.
I am not sure whether the Government want, in Clause 1, to include members of a governing body or councillors serving on a particular committee—we will come on later to definitions of public bodies. Often, people serve in these capacities as volunteers or as inexpert lay members. Are the Government really trying to say that they want those individuals to be held to account in a way that, in other parts of the Bill, they seem to be suggesting the body itself is to be affected? We need to be clear in our own minds which it is.
We would like to understand in what circumstances individuals will be given notices and then fines. I know we will come on to this later, but we do not know the extent of these fines. Will the fines be applied differently to individuals, compared to a council or a university? Pragmatically, we would expect them to be, but how will they be treated differently if they are to be subject to enforcement action? How will the enforcement agency decide? Is there to be discretion as to whether it is holding an individual responsible as the decision-maker, or is the organisation the decision-maker? How will it assess that? Will it look at the individual behaviour of particularly influential senior managers, members of staff or elected representatives? Would the chancellor of a university, for example, be held to account, or the wider organisation; and how will that judgment be made? The Explanatory Notes do not help us with this question in relation to Clause 1. That is why we have also tabled Amendment 55, which asks the Secretary of State to publish guidance on the circumstances in which an individual is the decision-maker under the Bill, and the circumstances in which they are not.
I am not a lawyer, so perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, would like to help us out here. When does this corporate liability, if I can put it that way, become an individual liability? The LGA has helpfully given examples of this question arising. I do not know whether noble Lords have had a chance to look at the pre-legislative scrutiny that took place in the Commons. The LGA was very clear about lots of things in its oral evidence, including that some councillors who serve on pensions committees are not particularly expert in managing these funds, but they are very well supported and advised by their officers, and they take their duties very seriously. Even where, say, a newly elected councillor arrives with some grand intention or attempts to argue for some kind of divestment decision, actually, their fiduciary duties, it is pointed out to them, override such concerns, and that does tend to become the view of the committee.
The LGA, because of its experience of how these things work in practice, said in its evidence that any enforcement action should be directed towards the administering authority and not the individual councillors. Can the Minister explain how an enforcement authority will decide whether individual or corporate responsibility applies for a particular decision? The LGA talks about this in relation to judicial review as well, which we will come on to later. The LGA feels that the subject of the judicial review should not be the decision-making authority but rather the enforcement authority, so that it is its decision that is challenged. If it decides not to issue a notice, that can be challenged, but the risk does not reside with the individual councillors.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I am an academic and, in the course of my career, I have been an associated member of three colleges in Oxford and Cambridge. One has a governing body in the mid-30s; the second has one of around 50; and the third has one of nearly 100—much too large, I quite agree. The chilling effect of this clause on those three colleges would be considerable, precisely because it is not entirely clear what it means by the individuals who make the decision for the decision-maker. That requires a great deal more clarification; at the very least, it ought to be in the Explanatory Notes. This is another attempt to ask the Government to come back with something which is a great deal clearer.
In my career, I have also been a historian and an analyst of foreign policy. It is an area in which we spend an awful lot of time defining, discussing and describing decision-making. We very often disagree sharply with each other because it is very difficult to define, for example, exactly who took the crucial decision that started the First World War. Baroness Henig, sadly no longer with us, wrote several books on the subject. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Belgravia, has written several books entirely disagreeing with what other historians have said about various crucial decisions.
That is, again, part of our problem: when a complicated decision is taken, who takes it? How many people are complicit? If you are a member of the council committee which takes the decision and you abstain on the vote—or vote against it—are you also part of the decision-making or not? There is, to say the least, a cloud of uncertainty around this phrase. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, understands it; I must say that I do not.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, I would also like to probe a little more on the meaning of “decision-maker” in a higher education context, following on from the excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.
Universities are often very decentralised in their structures, and power can be distributed quite far and wide. It is not always concentrated in the vice-chancellor’s office; nor is the governance of universities often as clear- cut as it might be. I would appreciate some clarity as the Bill proceeds on who exactly is going to be identified as the decision-maker in particular situations. Do we mean specifically decisions taken by the executive management team of an institution, principally the vice-chancellor? Do we mean, for example, student unions?
I noted that in my noble friend the Minister’s response to the noble Lord, Lord Mann, that student unions were—if I heard her correctly—out of scope, because they are private bodies. This confuses me a little, because I thought the whole purpose of the Bill, from a political point of view, was to address precisely this issue: student unions getting on their soapboxes and making statements about BDS, and all the rest of it. If they are out of scope of the Bill, I really wonder why universities as a whole are still in scope. It is not the vice-chancellors, academics or heads of department who are making these kinds of noises; it is the student unions. If I understood my noble friend the Minister correctly, they are not even covered. I really question why universities are still in scope at all, but that is a question we will come to later in Committee.
The final point on which I would like some clarity from my noble friend the Minister is whether a decision-maker will also be deemed to be an individual academic, who may manage a research budget. Will the use of that research budget by the individual academic be part of the decision-making process captured by the Bill? If so, how will that be squared with the legal duties on the OfS, among others, to promote academic freedom and freedom of speech in our higher education institutions?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, it seems to me that there is a bit of confusion going on. Amendment 7, which takes out the words in Clause 1(7), relates only to who is carrying out the disapproval. It is just amplifying those people whose disapproval is taken into account, to see whether or not the clause is engaged. It is not trying to add different categories of decision-maker, because the reference to decision-maker is clear in Clause 2, which we will come on to in another group. It is that definition that then drives enforcement, et cetera.
I was interested in Amendment 55 of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman—although I think it is actually the wrong amendment asking for regulations—because it highlights that decision-makers might be individuals under the Bill, which they can be. As I understand it, the definition of “decision-maker” in Clause 2 encompasses some individuals being the decision-maker from whom all these consequences might flow. That was a complete surprise to me because the Bill is titled the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill—a manifesto commitment related to public bodies. I was completely amazed to find that individuals might be public authorities within the terms of Clause 2, and therefore decision-makers.
I was interested in the noble Baroness’s probing amendment, because I hoped that she would be using that to ask the Minister what kinds of individuals could be decision-makers under the definition that we are using—the Human Rights Act definition. The limited research I have done produced the example of a doctor. When a doctor is carrying out his NHS work, he could be a public authority for that purpose, but when carrying out his private work, he could not be. I did not find much more than that, and I am rather hoping that the Minister will be able to explain to us in rather more detail precisely which individuals are decision-makers within Clause 2.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I, too, will speak to this amendment and do so, like the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Johnson, in relation to universities and higher education. I had some experience of that: I was on two university councils—those of Birmingham and Kent—and I chaired the Birmingham council for five or six years in the early part of this century.
I have to say to the Minister that, as a result of a lot of extremely desirable reforms, the decision-making at universities was concentrated quite heavily on the council. The council did not micromanage every decision, but it was responsible for every decision taken at the university. That responsibility was clearly focused on a much-reduced size of council, down from the 30s or 40s to the 20s, and it meant that a quite a lot of responsibility came on to its members, who were a combination of academics and lay persons—with a majority, on the whole, of lay persons. The lay persons on the council were volunteers and were not paid a penny. Now, if the vagueness in this bit of the legislation is retained, I would not like to be out there trying to recruit new members to university councils, if they thought they were going to be liable for any of the sorts of problems that could arise under this legislation.
I suspect that this is just one of many pieces of this legislation that reinforce the case for simply taking higher education and universities completely out of it. I think that is what we will come to when we get to Report. This is just the first illustration that it will have a remarkably chilling effect on the conduct of councils and the way in which people are prepared to serve—for nothing and as volunteers—on university councils, giving up many hundreds of hours of their lives to making sure that the university is properly administered and decisions properly taken.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I preface my remarks by declaring an interest as chancellor of Cardiff University. I apologise that my duties at Cardiff University prevented me attending the whole of Second Reading—so I could not speak, although I attended a significant part of it.
Before I was chancellor of Cardiff University, I was a member of the council of Cardiff Metropolitan University, so I have a background in both executive and non-executive roles at universities. What I have to say very much follows neatly from the noble Lord. My experience is that university councils—and other bodies doing the same job but sometimes with different names—are very highly regulated already. They involve a great deal of training and responsibility and absolutely no financial reward—but there is great satisfaction for those who participate.
In both universities I have mentioned, our problem is always trying to get the suitable range of highly skilled, highly experienced people to participate. If you add another unnecessary layer of responsibility on to those people, you will deter very worthwhile recruits and you will make life more difficult again for our higher education sector. So can the Minister give us examples of universities—and individuals within universities—that have made these inappropriate decisions, so that we can see why universities are included? Otherwise, if there are no examples at the Minister’s fingertips, could the Government give further thought to whether they should be included at all?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to return, very briefly, to something the noble Lord, Lord Mann, raised earlier. I can understand in the broader sense why universities have been included, because very often it has been universities that have been at the cutting edge of popularising boycotts. They have taken a wide range of forms—and not just in terms of what is sold or invested in. As the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, pointed out, it could be denying people research, not letting Israeli academics come over to speak or whatever. There are all sorts of ways that this happens. So, I understand why the university sector is in scope. My problem is that it is not clear to me how a Bill like this can do anything other than attack academic freedom, which I am interested in defending. I think we have to deal with what is happening on university campuses in a different way.
Regardless of that, the reason it is frustrating—and why I am referring to what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said—is that, if you have a conversation with anyone outside this Chamber, if they are like me, they are worried about BDS and anti-Semitic campaigns against Israeli academics. Something has just happened at King’s College London in fact, where an event has been called off, and there is a University of Leeds chaplain in hiding —all these things are going on. Ironically, if anything, this Bill is too narrow to deal with what is really happening. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Mann, made was that the way wording happens, there are ways around it that this Bill will not deal with. He and I might differ about how we would deal with that—I think we probably would. None the less, given what a public authority is, it is understandable why universities are in here—but, as people have said, which bit of the university?
For the Minister to say “Oh, no, it wouldn’t count, student unions”, would be utterly ludicrous. From the Government’s point of view, even if I go with you, why would it not be student unions? That would be mad. They are part of what the public authority of the university is about, along with research councils and everyone else. I am not trying to encourage the Government to wipe up every part of a university to bring them in scope, but to keep saying that they are not in scope makes no sense from the point of view of the public justification for this Bill by Michael Gove when he has argued for it, and anyone else who supports it. So we do need some clarity here.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, this debate has referred consistently to universities, but I do not want the point to get lost that there is an equivalent problem with local government pension schemes, where a succession of bodies take part in the decisions that are reached. Every fund has advisers, in particular advisers on ESG. The trustees are responsible for the decision, but they are under a legal obligation to give due regard to their advisers’ views. Now, because of the encouragement by the Government, the individual funds are not actually investing the money; the money is passed on to a pooled fund that equally has its advisers and its decision-makers. Somewhere in that thread of control, someone is a decision-maker, but I defy the Minister to tell us precisely, in the terms of this Bill, who it is.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have just a few points and questions, following the discussion we have just had. The first point is to seek clarity on whether my understanding of the last three lines of Clause 1(7) is correct. I understand those three lines simply to be saying that, where the decision-maker is a collegiate body, the duty to have regard applies to the individuals within that collegiate body who are taking the decision. That is how I read those three lines, but I may be missing something.
The second point arises from the comment that the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Marylebone, made about universities. I suppose it is a point that comes up both under these amendments but also under the next amendments and in particular Amendment 8. Paragraph 20 of the Explanatory Notes, which speaks to Clause 1, states:
“The ban in Clause 1 is not intended to prohibit a higher education institution from deciding to terminate a collaboration with a foreign university on the grounds of academic freedom”.
I read that as implying that, other than on those grounds, the ban would apply to a decision to terminate a collaboration with a foreign academic institution. I would like some clarity on this, because I was a bit surprised to see that my reading of the definition of “procurement decision” would not necessarily have included a collaboration with a foreign academic institution as a procurement decision. It certainly is not an investment decision, but is a collaboration with a foreign academic institution in scope of the ban potentially? That is what I would like to understand. If so, it raises the question that the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, raised, of whether the individual grant holder who has, for example, a research collaboration with a foreign institution, is within scope of Clause 1. That is not clear to me.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I have had advice from a professor of law at Cambridge University that it is not within scope where the research funding is not public. It is then a private act, not a public act.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, very many points have been made about how the decision-maker is established. From the point of view of local government, in local councils there are very many ways of taking decisions that can be individual or corporate. The tiers of responsibility and the trails that decisions make throughout a large organisation would need to be explored if enforcement action was to be taken.
In addition, councillors, committees or even pension committees, as we heard earlier, are advised by experts and independent advisers, so it is not clear where the line of accountability is and who is responsible, who is to be identified for enforcement action. The public authority, as has been identified earlier, is the body that is talked about in relation to Clause 4, but it is not in the Bill and does not relate to any other part of decision-making. I add my plea for further clarification as to how the decision-maker is to be identified and how enforcement is to be pursued in light of that.
As far as pension funds are concerned, as a former member I know that expert advisers do take account of political situations in their evaluation of risk. Again, that may be intimidating for councillors or advisers and inhibit the quality of advice that is given.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 7, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, and Amendment 55, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, seek clarity on whether an individual is considered a decision-maker for the purposes of this Bill. It was helpful to hear the introduction from the noble Baroness and her wish for general elucidation. As she implied, it is an important part of the Bill’s provisions. I will try to confine my points mainly to decision-makers, which are the purpose of this group.
A public authority will generally delegate responsibility for decision-making on procurement and investment decisions to individuals within the public authority. The individuals who make the decision on behalf of the public authority will do so in accordance with the public authority’s internal policies and structures. To address the noble Baroness’s question on enforcement, even when an individual is making decisions or speaking on behalf of a public authority, the ban applies only to the public authority itself. There is no personal liability for the individual. Individuals will therefore not personally be responsible for any fines that may be imposed on public authorities for a breach of the ban in Clauses 1 or 4.
On the noble Baroness’s question on pensions—this is something I know about because I have served as a pension trustee, admittedly in the private sector—this is something we can come back to in more detail when we discuss Clause 12, but I will also look at the Local Government Association material that she referenced, which I am sure will be helpful and interesting.
My noble friend Lady Noakes made the point that there are some limited cases where individuals are the public authority in their own right. She asked for examples, so I suppose that examples would be UK Government Ministers, Ministers from devolved Administrations and police and crime commissioners. They could also be individuals such as mayors if they exercise public functions in their own right. Any individual who is a public authority in their own right is already subject to far-reaching and fundamental duties under the Human Rights Act 1998. They could be subject to court action if they restrict others’ human rights, and the duties in the Human Rights Act are much more wide-ranging than the prohibitions in this Bill. It would not be appropriate for these individuals to be pursuing policies that are not in line with the official foreign policy, which is, of course, set by the UK Government. To be clear, local authority councillors and university leaders are not public authorities in their own right.
Amendment 55 would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance to clarify in what circumstances an individual is a decision-maker before the Bill commences. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to publish guidance on this matter, as every public authority is structured differently and has different policies on how its internal decision-making process operates. As it happens, as the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, said, structures vary a lot, and that is the case.
To give the House an example, in the case of local authorities, they will have a scheme of delegations in place, with, for example, a commissioning board, which will indicate who takes procurement decisions. While the decision is made by the individuals on the board, they have been empowered to take those decisions via the scheme of delegations, and it is therefore the local authority that is the legal decision-maker in the context of the ban. This is made clear in Clause 2(1) of the Bill. Even when an individual is making decisions or speaking on behalf of a public authority, the ban applies only to the public authority itself and there is no personal liability for the individual. Therefore, individuals will not personally be responsible for any fines that may be imposed on public authorities for a breach of the ban. The concerns on this issue—
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
What the Minister is saying is genuinely quite helpful, but I am just trying to apply this to my experience of the real world. If a councillor, say, were to make a statement or cause something to happen at a conference or something like that, the council would be held responsible as a public authority for the actions of that individual. The trouble with that, in a way, is that that would then influence the advice, guidance and training that is given to elected individuals, and then you would get the chilling effect that we are all so concerned about. Just to make sure, have I actually understood that correctly? Is that what the Minister was explaining to us?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think that sounds right but, if I may, I will clarify if I got that wrong. To some extent, it is important in Committee that we actually understand what is happening. That is what, in the spirit of the noble Baroness’s question, I am trying to do. Even if a decision were delegated to individuals in a public authority, such as a commissioning board in a local authority, I think it is clear that the fine would be imposed on the public authority, not the individual.
I should briefly address why universities need to be in the scope of the legislation in response to my noble friend Lord Johnson, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. We will come back to this on later amendments. It is an area of particular interest to a lot of noble Lords, not least because of the huge contributions people in this House make to the university sector.
However, the fact is that universities are a frequent target of the BDS movement, and some student unions —to come back to that point—have passed motions pressurising their universities to divest from Israeli companies. The Bill will ensure that universities cannot implement such policies in response to pressure from their student unions, as that would be divisive and could potentially contribute to rising anti-Semitism on university campuses, which is a concern.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The Minister raised it—can she give us one example of where a university has ever succumbed to such pressure from its student union?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
We will come back to this amendment; as the noble Baroness knows, this is an area of investigation for me, and I am trying to make sure that we have all the answers that we need and can provide the sorts of examples that she and I are used to exchanging in trying to move forward legislation in a constructive way.
On student unions, I will add a point that perhaps I should have made earlier. Student unions are usually charities and can undertake political activity only if it can be shown to support their charitable purposes, in line with Charity Commission guidance. Any questions as to whether political activity was appropriate would be considered in line with the Charity Commission’s normal processes. However, I confirm what I said earlier, that the Bill is narrow, applying to public bodies and, obviously, to investment and procurement. I hope that that addresses the concerns of noble Lords.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
The Minister used the word “pressurised”. Did she do so advisedly—“pressurised” as opposed to “called on” or “suggested”? Is “pressurised” defined in the Bill?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think I used the word “pressure”. Certainly, I was reading “pressure”, but perhaps I blurred the wording and said “pressurised”. I could equally have used “influenced” or some other word. I was trying to explain what we were getting at on the education side of things.
I have a couple of examples of student union pressure, which I mentioned earlier. Warwick student union held an all-student vote in 2020 to pressure the University of Warwick to fully divest from all unethical industries and release all investments. That included divesting from companies in support of a boycott of Israel, and divesting from international companies that are complicit in violations of Palestinian rights. There was also the example of Sussex University, which I mentioned a little earlier.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The thing is, though, as we are teasing out, is it not right that the Bill would not stop Warwick University student union from passing a motion in that regard? It would stop the university from acting on it, but no university has ever acted on these things. That is why we are all scratching our heads a little about what we are going to get from the Bill. It was a manifesto commitment—we understand that—but it is not our fault if the Government cannot turn their manifesto commitment into a usable piece of legislation.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
On the Warwick University point, for clarification, the other important thing that happened there was that Warwick University academics refused to sit on a panel discussing the issue of Israel, and so on. That was led by academics. It would not be affected by the Bill. The Minister can say, “Oh, that’s okay, it won’t be affected by this Bill” but that has had a much more damaging impact on the debate around Israel in Warwick University than anything that a few people at the student union did and that the university authorities did not act upon. What the university did not do was support those Jewish students and the organisation that organised that debate, and it let the academics carry on. The question of what the Bill will and will not do, and who will be held responsible, is what we are trying to clarify in this Committee.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I did not come prepared with examples about universities—my memory is not that good. However, there have been very many occasions where violence used by anti-Israel students has forced the university to cancel speakers or to charge Israeli and Jewish societies for their own security when an Israeli or a pro-Israeli speaker comes. There are manifold examples of this, and I have dealt with it over the years. If noble Lords do not know about this, they really should.
The comments that have been made by the noble Lords, Lord Mann and Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, take us to the heart of the Bill and why the drafting is so difficult. What the Bill really means to do is clamp down on anti-Semitism in local authorities and universities, but it cannot say so in direct terms; therefore, it goes much more broadly than it needs to, because it is academically dancing around the subject. If I could rip it up and start again, I would have a couple of clauses saying that anti-Israel activity—anti-Zionist activity, if you want to call it that, or anti-Semitic activity—is prohibited in universities and public authorities, because there are no examples of universities and public authorities acting against Australia, to give a fanciful example. Is anyone banning Australian wine because of what happened to the Aborigines? Is anyone banning New Zealand lamb because of the way the Māoris were treated? Is anyone, anywhere, ceasing to use Chinese products? I need hardly go on.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I will add to this element of the debate, if I may, because I think it is relevant. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, mentioned at Second Reading that he was on the council of Southampton University. I too am an alumnus of Southampton University.
In March 2015, the university procured the services of a speaker to host a debate questioning the right of Israel to exist. I do not know whether that would be caught by the Bill. I would hope that it is, but I suspect that it is not. I wrote to the vice-chancellor at the time—I had been a very modest donor to the university—and asked, going to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, whether there had been any conference at Southampton University questioning the right to exist of any other country. He wrote back and said there had not. Eventually, the conference was cancelled—it received reprobation from the Communities Secretary at the time, now my noble friend Lord Pickles —only because the university claimed it could not go ahead on health and safety grounds. But that was a very thin excuse, and for a university to host a conference dedicated to questioning the right of the State of Israel to exist, and to procure the services of people to run it, is, I hope noble Lords would agree, what we should be addressing.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister was asking whether I was reassured. I appreciate that that was largely a rhetorical question, but I have to say I am not yet totally reassured. But I would be if she were able to furnish us with examples of higher education institutions succumbing to pressure from student unions to undertake BDS-style actions in relation to their investment and procurement decisions. That is really important for us as we make progress with the Bill.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank all noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for their interventions. I observe that, obviously, the Bill will make this boycotting activity by student unions almost pointless. But I say to the speakers that this is a group about decision-makers, and we are ranging widely into the debate about the exact involvement of universities, although that has been helpful in informing the next stage of this Committee.
Returning to decision-makers, perhaps I could just say in conclusion that I trust that this addresses some of the concerns of noble Lords and the noble Baroness. My officials will provide further clarification in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes, as requested by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I hope, in the light of the explanations I have given, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, that was probably a bit more helpful than I had anticipated, in that it fleshed out some of our really quite fundamental concerns. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, made a very powerful case for why action is needed to prevent some of the antagonism and fear, and those activities that have happened on campuses and elsewhere that we all want to prevent. But this Bill does not do it: it deals only with boycott and divestment decisions. It probably brings into scope people and decision-makers that the Government did not have in mind.
The idea that people who want to campaign on these issues will suddenly stop doing so as a consequence of the legislation is fanciful because, as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said in his Second Reading speech, they will just change the target from public authorities to others. It will not deal with some of the unpleasantness and the atmosphere on campus. That will not be assisted in any way, and the way the Bill is drafted might actually make things worse. It will not deal with campaigns to prevent certain events or not to have certain speakers. Those things are completely outside the scope of the Bill. We are focusing on universities to make this point, but similar things could be said about local government.
I am very happy to withdraw my amendment, but I think we are going to end up with this discussion on most of the groups, because the Bill is so unsatisfactory and does not actually fulfil the aims that the Government say they wish to achieve. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(9) A decision under subsection (2) may include a decision by a university or research institution based in the United Kingdom to enter into a commercial partnership with another university or research institution in a foreign state.”
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
I again reference my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests. I should specify, as others have, that I am an unpaid adviser to His Majesty’s Government on anti-Semitism, and that previously in the other House I was, for 14 years, the chair of the all-party group on combating anti-Semitism.
In that time and over recent years, I visited virtually every university in the country, looking at and discussing anti-Semitism. I have a very detailed report that was published last year with a lot of recommendations on what should be done in higher education in this country on this issue. In introducing my amendment, I can let the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, and others know that there were no examples from that time of when a student union was capable of influencing a university in terms of BDS campaigns. I think I described it at Second Reading as the most unsuccessful political campaign in my lifetime, and that was partly why I used that language.
My amendment gets to the nub of the issue—what the problem that led to the Conservative Party’s manifesto commitment at the last election for a BDS Bill is actually about. The fundamental issue and problem that has been raised consistently is attempts at academic boycotts. In the last six months, there has without question been a growth in the pressure in universities and on academics not to carry out co-operation or research work that links directly into Israeli universities. That is a fact. How it manifests is not so much complex as complex to legislate on, because the most common way is peer group pressure. How does a university department determine what its research priorities should be? How does it determine which of the myriad universities around the world it should co-operate with?
Sometimes it is explicit; the arguments and the language are explicit. It seems to me that here there is potential scope for legislation, hence this amendment. Sometimes it is not. It is unspoken; it simply happened. Clearly, for us as legislators, that is very intangible. However, the purpose of this amendment would be to give not just a message but a specific legislative tool that would prohibit the explicit refusal to an individual academic of any status, including postgraduates, for example, specifically to work with a university that somebody did not like for political or whatever reasons.
These cases are about Israeli universities. It is widespread across Israeli universities in terms of people saying, “That should not happen”, “We don’t do that here” or “You should not do that. Your research should not include that”. That puts immense pressure on individuals. Imagine that you are a postgraduate student and you are told by your supervisor, “No, I don’t think you should be researching into what is happening in Israel in relation to the specific subject of your postgraduate studies”. That is exactly the pressure that has happened. Or, “We as a university are not going to have a relationship”. The excuse given might be, “We don’t have the budget for this particular university” —Haifa university, let us say—“but we do have a budget for another university somewhere else in the world”. That is precisely how it manifests.
Where it could be demonstrated that that is done for racist reasons, when the academic has a specific interest, a particular desire, a particular motivation to work with an Israeli university or with an Israeli academic, that becomes the problem that we should be dealing with. That is the real problem of anti-Semitism having a pernicious impact in our universities and in our university life. Thankfully, it is not widespread in terms of how it happens, but it is there, it is more common, there are many examples of it over the years and there are increasing examples now.
So having something in the Bill that addresses that specific problem is far more relevant than the theoretics of investment decisions elsewhere, where the evidence base does not say that is the nub of the problem. If the Government wish to manage expectations in the Jewish community, that is rather fundamental. The people who have said, “Yes, we welcome this Bill”, expect it to be about student unions and student union debates. There is no ambiguity in what people have said and what they have called for. It does not serve the interests of Government or Parliament to build up a false expectation of what a piece of legislation would do— indeed, it is dangerous to do so, in my view. So I put it to the Government and the Committee that this amendment would be helpful in putting some meat into the issue for this Bill to progress.
My second amendment, Amendment 9, is equally important but for a different reason. My stance on BDS protests and campaigns is that, frankly, if anyone here chooses to buy this or that product, it is perfectly valid. If one decides not to buy Jaffa oranges because one does not like Israel or the Israeli Government, that is a choice one is free to make and should be free to make. If someone chooses particularly to buy Jaffa oranges, that is a perfectly valid case. If, like me, one is partial to both Palestinian dates and Jaffa oranges, one can say that that is a healthy choice to make on both counts, and perhaps even a little bit politically balanced—I am doing so because the food is rather good. If one chooses, as I do, not to buy Ben & Jerry’s, perhaps one might observe that that is doing me some good. Whether one calls that a political or moral decision, or an absurd decision, it does not matter; that is my free choice.
However, if one then stops a shop—let us say, in a student union or university, or in a local authority—stocking Jaffa oranges, that means that people who wish to buy them cannot do so. It is particularly invidious, when a religion, and there are several, has specific dietary rules and laws—in the case of Judaism, it is kosher food—specifically to isolate the ability of individuals to choose to follow religious norms and rules on diet and ban their right to do so. That is much more invidious, because it is impacting one’s way of life. Therefore, the principle is far greater. Having additional legislation that specifically makes that illegal has a much more powerful impact, because it is affecting a way of life. With the so-called BDS campaign, we are seeing increasingly Jewish kosher foods, which may be Israeli or not, being specifically targeted by racists, whether in supermarkets or Jewish-owned stores, inhibiting the rights of those who choose to be kosher-adherent to be so. That fundamental freedom is being restricted. That is why Amendment 9 has a validity to it.
There are great legal brains here who will work through whether the amendments I am proposing would work; they appear to me to do so. Certainly, in terms of the expectation out there of what this Bill is about, people are interested in precisely this kind of thing, because these are the big issues impacting on how people live their lives and on their freedoms; that is, their academic freedoms to do what they wish as academics—which, I put it to the Committee, is fundamental to what we are as a country—and their freedoms to be themselves in what they choose to eat, which is fundamental to the concept of individual and collective rights, and what we are in this country. I recommend these two amendments to the Government and the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading, and I draw attention to my entry in the register. I am not entirely sure that what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said is entirely within the scope of the Bill, but it should be, because it raises a very important point. Before I go on, I crave your Lordships’ indulgence for 30 seconds, because I want to say how indebted this country is to the noble Lord for his work in universities and higher education, and also in sport. He has made a considerable difference, and this House should be grateful to him,
What the noble Lord said illustrates that this is not just about who is in charge, or about the comfort of people attending universities and speaking in student union debates; it is about who is welcome and who is not. It is about how comfortable people feel when politics from another country spills over and affects the domestic life of this country. It is about how we underpin, and celebrate, a multicultural society, while ensuring that we can also celebrate our common Britishness.
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, has done a lot of work on getting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism adopted in universities. It is a non-legally binding definition, and is there as a marker for discussions. As with all such things, there is a bit of a fashion, and people go around and adopt things. The question that the noble Lord asked, and that I ask, is: “Congratulations on adopting it, but what have you done with it?”
The very minimum we would expect, in a university, say, is the creation of a safe space for Jewish students to be able to study. But this also means creating a safe space to do the sorts of things that would keep their parents up at night worrying about them—to be able to enjoy being at university, to enjoy life and to be able to go around the campus with signs of their Jewishness, without fear that they will be picked on. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is making is that we should not seek to do things that exclude people. If people have a particular view of the kind of food they can eat, that should be available. Student shops on campuses should not remove kosher food, because that excludes people.
I speak from practical experience of this. In the late 1980s and early 1990s I was the leader of Bradford Council, and, with the co-operation of the Labour Party, we introduced halal meat into school meals. That does not sound all that exciting—we see it all the time—but we were the first council in the country to do it. There was an enormous backlash from the population, and from the animal rights people, because of the nature of religious-compliant slaughter.
Why was that important? We had a large number of Muslims in Bradford, many of them on very low incomes, and it was one guaranteed way of ensuring that once a day, the children got a hot, nutritious meal that met their needs. We were also saying something really important to the population of Bradford, which was, as we say in Bradford, “You’re ratepayers—so you’re entitled to get back what you’re putting in. You’re entitled to receive respect”. When we try to get people to work together as a wider community, we should not seek to exclude them because they cannot come to receptions or parties or other social events because we do not provide things that they can enjoy. We should also ensure that if people want to pray, that should be available, because this is about bringing people together.
I am not sure whether the Bill covers that, but there is a debate coming in this country that may be the flip side of the definition of extremism, which is about how we bind people together—how we work together and make people feel British without them losing their identity. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, has given considerable service to this House by raising this because it is an issue that over the coming years and decades we have to get right.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 8. I declare an interest: I have two children, both scientists, working in universities. My son runs a microbiology laboratory at Edinburgh University that has a number of international research partnerships, including with Israeli academics. I am unaware, from everything my children have told me, that anyone is boycotting contact with Israel in microbiology. There are some highly regarded Israeli scholars who take part in a whole range of things.
There are course problems in some research partnerships with Chinese academics, sometimes now with Russian academics and sometimes with academics from particular Middle Eastern countries. One has to leave it to those who are running laboratories, which are highly international—I think my son currently has people from four different countries in his—because these matters require delicate arrangements. When it comes to the social sciences, particularly if you are teaching international relations and have a lot of research students, as I used to, and you are sending them out to study Saudi, Egyptian or above all Chinese issues, you are in really delicate areas.
I emphasise that any of those are private acts of a university—commercial partnerships most of all. When that gets into the question of how far we want the Government to interfere in the autonomy of universities, we do not always get it right. There have been research students and young scholars who have been imprisoned in the Emirates or imprisoned and killed in prison, as in Egypt. On one occasion I had to approach one of the intelligence agencies about some of our students at the LSE, immediately after 9/11, because some people had lost confidence in the people with whom they were dealing. That has to be left to the judgment of universities. I do not think there is a problem there, and I am therefore unhappy about the idea that Amendment 8 should be included within the scope of this Bill.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, while I am sympathetic to the intentions of Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, I wonder if it is ultimately going to be necessary, given that the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 gives the Office for Students powers to take action whenever an institution is in breach of the public interest principles it is required to uphold.
One of those principles relates specifically to academic freedom and the issues to which the noble Lord was referring with respect to Israel. All academic staff at an English higher education provider have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing the jobs or privileges they may have at that provider. I think that essentially covers the points he was making in respect of academics being prevented from pursuing partnerships or research with universities in Israel or with Israeli academics. We have these provisions in law and the Office for Students has all the powers at its disposal to enforce them. So I am not sure that Amendment 8 is entirely necessary, although I understand why he tabled it.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I associate myself with the words of my noble friend Lord Pickles about the work done over many years by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, for the Government in an unpaid capacity. That work is well regarded and very much appreciated in the Jewish community and, I am sure, well beyond it too.
Turning to Amendment 9, while I understand its focus and purpose, I am not sure that it is necessary in the Bill. In particular, although this is not my area of law, I wonder whether the thrust of the amendment would not actually be covered by existing provisions under the Equality Act. I do not know whether the Minister or her department has thought of that, but, if this were to go forward, that might be another way of dealing with this issue.
On a narrower point, the amendment is also widely drawn. It would seem to cover, for example, a decision to use one halal supplier or one kosher supplier rather than a different halal or kosher supplier. I think that cannot be within the intention of the amendment, although I think it would be caught by it.
I am conscious of the time, but I will end on a slightly different point. The focus of this amendment is that food is sometimes used to drive a wedge between communities. This might be a strange thing for me to say, but I want to pay tribute to Zarah Sultana MP, with whom I probably agree on absolutely nothing but who, with Charlotte Nichols MP, ran a long-standing campaign in Parliament to have kosher and halal food available here. They found a supplier called 1070, which has both kosher and halal certification to provide that food. As a result, I have had conversations over food with people who I might not otherwise have had those conversations with and I found those discussions extremely helpful. I use this, probably very wrongly, to suggest to the authorities that this kosher and halal food be continued, so that we can not only eat together but discuss and speak together as well.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, because the noble Lord, Lord Mann, has done incredibly important work in tackling anti-Semitism and ensuring that we remove it from all of our civil life. I pay tribute to him.
I will not delay the House too long, but the important thing with these two amendments is expectations. This is the problem with the Bill. While I want to avoid going back, we have made a plea—my noble friend Lady Chapman made it at Second Reading—that we want to co-operate with the Government to implement their manifesto commitment. I am afraid that this Bill goes well beyond that and brings into question other issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, is absolutely right to put these sorts of amendments down, because they address the concerns of the community. People often think when we are talking about this Bill that we are talking about consumer boycotts and consumer choice. No, we are not. It is about decisions over investment and procurement, but those decisions can involve the sorts of things that the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is talking about—and we heard an example from the noble Lord just now.
How we manage expectations is really important. I suspect that, when we go into other groups, we will hear lots of concerns about issues that go well beyond the scope of the Bill. So I hope the Minister understands why the noble Lord, Lord Mann, has put these amendments in. They are to probe, but also to say that there is a problem, there is an issue and the Bill does not solve it.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mann, for drawing the House’s attention to two important issues with his Amendments 8 and 9. Like my noble friend Lord Pickles, who it is a real pleasure to welcome to our debate, my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, I am really grateful for all the work that the noble Lord, Lord Mann, has done.
My noble friend Lord Pickles and I worked together in my retail days, when he was a leading influence in local government and I worked to have kosher and halal food in many of the Tescos that were spreading across the country. So there were lots of conversations over food. A focus on community concerns is what much of the probing has been about this evening—but that is for another group.
I remain of the view that we need to apply this Bill to universities as we are doing, and I am committed to having a comprehensive debate and discussion on the impact of the Bill on universities at the appropriate moment later in Committee.
As we have heard, the two amendments in this group would add two stipulations to Clause 1. Amendment 8 intends to ensure that the prohibition applies to a decision made by a university to enter into a commercial partnership with another university or research university in a foreign state. The prohibition in the Bill already covers higher education providers in their public functions, including when their procurement and investment decisions form part of a research collaboration. Decisions relating to a commercial partnership are, however, likely to constitute a private function—for example, a decision relating to a research partnership to develop a new product funded by a pharmaceutical company. The ban applies only to public authorities’ public functions, as we have heard, and private decisions are rightly out of scope of the Bill. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, says, but it would be inappropriate to apply the ban to private functions, and it would take the Bill beyond the manifesto commitment.
We have been clear in the Explanatory Notes that Clause 1 is not intended to prevent a higher education provider deciding to terminate a collaboration with a foreign university on the grounds of academic freedom, if they deem it necessary in line with their statutory duties in Part A1 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 or other legislation. The Bill is about ensuring that universities and higher education institutions do not have a corporate view on a particular matter of foreign policy when making their investment and procurement decisions. It is right that the Bill does not stray into decisions that could threaten academic freedom, as helpfully highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, who spoke at Second Reading. I am sympathetic to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is making, and the Government do not support academic boycotts, but this Bill rightly does not interfere with academic freedom or private activity.
I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, about the Jewish community’s support for this Bill. The Jewish community in the UK is widely supportive of the Bill as drafted. Russell Langer, head of policy at the Jewish Leadership Council, provided the following statement in support of the Bill’s restriction on universities’ economic activities:
“Higher education institutions continue to come under pressure to adopt BDS policies ... This legislation will be a valuable tool in assisting our higher education in rejecting this effort”.
The Bill will sit alongside other measures that the Government are taking to protect academic freedom. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 will ensure that freedom of speech is protected and promoted within higher education in England, and it will strengthen existing freedom of speech duties and directly address gaps in the existing law. Without action to counter attempts to discourage or even silence unpopular views, intellectual life on campus for staff and students may be unfairly narrowed or diminished, which is why there was a commitment in the 2019 manifesto to strengthen this.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
The Minister has just said that we need legislation to silence unpopular views. I have to say that, as a liberal, I find that one of the most illiberal things that we could consider doing. Did she mis-speak?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am not sure that I said exactly that. However, there obviously is a problem in campuses and elsewhere with BDS, and that is what this Bill is about. I shall move on to Amendment 9.
Baroness Deech (CB)
If I can help the Minister, what we need to silence is hate speech. The law is reasonably clear. It is not wholly clear—there is a blur between unpopular views and hate speech—but it has been settled for a long time that hate speech is not allowed. My test for this is when you hear something and it uses the word “Zionist” or “Jew”, if you remove that word and replace it with, let us say, “black” or “Asian”, it is then usually pretty clear that what you are dealing with is hate speech or racist speech.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. These are difficult issues.
I turn briefly to Amendment 9, which would ensure that the prohibition in Clause 1 applied to decisions relating to the procurement of food prepared in line with religious practices, such as kosher and halal foods. The ban established by the Bill applies to all procurement decisions, including the procurement of food where this is part of a public function. Therefore, if a public authority made a decision not to procure kosher food and that decision was influenced by moral or political disapproval of the conduct of the State of Israel, the Bill would already prohibit this. However, I reassure noble Lords that nothing in the Bill would stop a public authority providing food that accommodated the religious beliefs of its employees or its service users. For example, it would not stop a public authority specifying in a tender that it was procuring halal products. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill
Wednesday 17th April 2024
(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 38-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (15 Apr 2024)
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Member’s explanatory statement
This, alongside another to Clause 2 in the name of Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is a probing amendment to clarify the distinction between a public body and a public authority.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 10 I will also speak to Amendment 13 and the others in the group. I would particularly like to say how helpful I thought the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, were in helping us to clarify these very broad terms: public bodies and public authorities. I have just been looking back at some of the debates on the Human Rights Act 1998, during which then Home Secretary Jack Straw said that this was an extremely difficult area on which to find an exact definition; he decided to leave it to the courts for further definition.
One of the things we have to consider while discussing this is how much we do want to leave it to the courts, or to ensure that what it says in the legislation is a little tighter than what we have so far. The drafting of the Bill in so many areas is extraordinarily and dangerously loose. I thank the Minister for the letter she has sent me and no doubt others on the question of individual responsibility and personal liability. I am not sure that I entirely understood it; I showed it to one or two legal acquaintances, and they are not sure that they are much clearer than they were before. That perhaps shows some of the difficulties in which we are engaged.
When I first read this Bill, I noticed that it declared in its title that it was about public bodies, and that in Clause 2 it says it is about public authorities. As it happens, I got into the lift with another Member of this House, with whom I worked when he was a Conservative Cabinet Minister during the coalition Government. I asked him casually: “Tell me, do you think that a public body and a public authority are the same thing?”. He said: “Oh no, of course not. The definition of a public body is far narrower than that of a public authority”.
A Bill that starts by having one of these terms in its title, and then goes on to use the other term in the text, raises a number of questions. This morning I reread the impact assessment, which uses the terms interchangeably, by and large preferring “public body” to “public authority”. I worry about how clear those who drafted the Bill are about what they are doing. We then go into “hybrid public bodies”, which the impact assessment talks about, or hybrid public authorities. When I began to read through Lexis and try to understand some of the case law—in which a number of noble and learned Members of this House emerge as those who have made judgments on this—I discovered that functional public authorities and hybrid public authorities raise many of the questions with which we would have to deal, if and when this became an Act. The line between public and private functions for public authorities that are partly public and partly private is a very delicate one, and one on which litigation leaves much room.
We all know what core public authorities are, but hybrid public authorities are a very loose and broad entity. The Minister said on a previous occasion, in another context, that there were well over 100,000 public authorities. No doubt the definition, after a while, becomes extremely unclear. After all, Section 6(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 talks about
“any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature”.
The question of how many functions need to be of a public nature, and how much that affects how they behave in other areas, has been contested in the courts on many occasions. Court cases have ruled that a privatised railway company, for example, is not a public authority, but that a privatised water company and, in a different case, a private provider of social housing are, for certain purposes, public authorities. Rulings have differed on whether private care providers to local authorities are public authorities.
The impact assessment and the ministerial letter refer to “cultural institutions” as coming within this. In the letter that came to us before Second Reading, the Minister talks about museums and galleries that receive significant amounts of public money. Amendment 13 is intended to probe what is meant by significant amounts of public money. I have suggested in that amendment that the bar should be put at 50%, as opposed to whether this was largely public or largely private with public aspects. A court case in 1999 found that the University of Cambridge—
Lord Grocott (Lab)
The noble Lord mentioned at one stage whether railway companies are public bodies. A train operating company, for example, is clearly not a public body when it is a private company, but if it goes bankrupt or has difficulties it gets taken over by the Government. If the Government then get it right in due course, it goes back to the private sector. Can bodies oscillate between the two categories? Is that a further complication?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I defer to my noble friends on that. Part of my concern about this law is that there will be a great deal of employment for my learned friends to be found in it, if it were to go through.
Indeed, that is one of the things which appears in the delegated powers memorandum, which says at paragraph 4:
“It is intended that the measures will be widely construed”.
Paragraph 12 says:
“The prohibition will apply to ‘public authorities’ in accordance with section 6 HRA 1998; however, interpretations of section 6 HRA 1998 can create uncertainty which means that the Bill may, including as case law evolves, capture a range of bodies that it was not necessarily intended to apply to. It may be necessary to put beyond doubt that certain bodies (that are outside the scope of the intention to ban public bodies from boycotts and divestments) fall outside the definition of ‘public authority’ for the purpose of the Bill”.
I hope that the lack of clarity of that is clear.
The impact assessment does refer to hybrid public bodies and suggests that it is concerned to prevent them pursuing political and foreign policy agendas, “including with public money”. I interpret that as meaning that such hybrid public authorities may perhaps not be allowed to pursue such agendas, including when they are using private money. That is a question that will concern a great many people, in particular the university sector, from which we have received further correspondence on this precise area.
The Minister has not told us enough about the broad last category, cultural institutions, and whether this includes theatres and orchestras on foreign tours, as well as museums and galleries—and why on earth museums and galleries are in there. That is another area where I suspect that sector would prefer a little more certainty.
Universities have been particularly concerned about the impact on their international partnerships, which are, I am assured by my university friends, part of their private functions. Some of these are education partnerships, some are transnational research partnerships —I declare an interest, in that my son is actively engaged in this—and some are with foreign companies and donors. They can be very sensitive and can raise reputational problems, as some universities, including the one I used to work for, have learned to their cost. Again, it would be helpful if we had more detailed guidance on that.
At several points in the impact assessment, and in the memoranda to the Delegated Powers Committee and others, the Government emphasise the importance of ensuring the coherence of British foreign policy, and that it should not allow others to conduct their own foreign policy agendas. I notice the Express reported the other week that the Government have signed immensely valuable trade deals with Washington state and Texas. It seems an interesting contradiction for the British Government to insist that subordinate entities within the UK state should not be allowed to engage in any sort of deal with other countries while they actively attempt to get past Washington to deal with American states. I am not sure whether these are significant trade deals or not; I have the memorandum of understanding with the state of Washington and it seems rather less substantial than the Daily Express suggests.
The Minister may be thinking that precision does not matter so much in the Bill because it is intended to be largely performative and not to lead, in practice, to any serious enforcement. After all, the impact assessment notes how little boycott activity there has so far been beyond discussion, and the Bill is unlikely to be implemented before the coming election. However, we should not be in the business of permitting the Government to put badly drafted law on to the statute book for show. We need much greater clarity, and I look forward to what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, will say about the need for clarity in this area. The Minister shares with the House the responsibility to ensure that the Bill does not become an Act without much greater clarity about its terminology and the extent of its reach over the UK’s public and private bodies. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I share many of the concerns explained by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. That is why I tabled Amendments 11 and 12, which are in this group. Like the noble Lord, I thought this Bill was about public bodies, because that is what appears in the title. He read out the definition that we are invited to use in Clause 2, which is the definition in Section 6(3) of the Human Rights Act. It is clear from that that it can capture private sector bodies, which is why I first got interested in this topic. I tabled Amendment 12 in order to probe the extent to which private sector bodies are going to be dragged within the ambit of the Bill.
I have done more research on that since Second Reading. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I have been ploughing through some of the legal cases on the definition in the Human Rights Act. It is clear that private sector bodies can be captured, but it is also probably fair to say that the courts have been tending to give a fairly narrow interpretation of that, so that private sector companies have been caught only in relation to where they are very clearly involved in delivering or exercising public functions.
Amendment 14, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, seeks to ensure that bodies caught within the definition in respect of public functions are captured only for the extent of public functions. It seems to me that that is unnecessary because of Section 6(5) of the Human Rights Act, which says much the same thing in a slightly different way. I would go further and suggest that private sector bodies, and private sector companies in particular, should not be within the ambit of the Bill.
When I was carrying out some research, the one thing that I did learn was that the definition of public authority is not clear. In fact, probably the only clear thing is that if any body is in doubt, it has to take its own legal advice. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, referred to this problem in her Second Reading speech, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. I shall make a plea on behalf of SMEs, which I know are very close to the heart of my noble friend the Minister: they find uncertainty very hard to bear, so having a definition which is uncertain seems to be a problem.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for their amendments in this group. They are incredibly helpful. What we are trying to do here, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has just said, is elicit some certainty from the Government on behalf of those organisations which might find themselves drawn into the scope of this Bill. Even though they may not consider themselves to be public bodies ordinarily, they might find that they are when it comes to this Bill. We will come later to an argument about whether universities should be treated as public bodies and we feel, as we said at earlier stages, they should clearly not be. But that is not the only area where we feel that the Government have not thought sufficiently about what they are trying to do.
Amendment 11 from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would, as she explained, apply the definition in the Freedom of Information Act. That would settle this to a large extent, in that we are clear about who is and who is not subject to that Act. It would be interesting to hear whether the Government are minded to welcome that suggestion because, from what the Minister has said on previous occasions, all the instances that she has referred to as justifying the need for the Bill would probably be covered. I am not sure why the Government do not just welcome that, to be honest; it does not answer all of our problems, but it would go some way towards that.
The introductory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was incredibly helpful and his amendments likewise. He concluded by saying he suspects that the Bill is actually performative in nature and worries that the operability is not at the forefront of anybody’s mind in government. I have no idea how true that is, but I share his concern that it is the job of this House to make sure that we do not pass legislation that is unworkable and just causes confusion.
Our Amendment 14 is probing and I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, had to say about it. But we are just trying various ways in this group—and in the next, too—to work out which organisations will be subject to these new rules. The example that has been helpfully provided to me by Universities UK was the one that led to the tabling of our Amendment 14.
If the Government get their way and universities are to be treated as public bodies for the purposes of this Bill, although I very much hope not for any other purpose, their activities that we could argue are clearly outside their publicly funded responsibilities—those conducted, perhaps, with private money or are contracted to private companies—would in no way be subject to the rules within the Bill. There is a reference that makes this clear in the Explanatory Notes, but the amendment that we have suggested would put that explanation into the Bill. As I said, it is to probe exactly what the situation would be because, at the moment, universities are not clear about that and it is important that we give them that certainty.
An example was suggested to me by Universities UK. It is hypothetical but not so outlandish that this situation is not happening very frequently. I declare an interest as chancellor of Teesside University. Here is the hypothetical example: university A is considering a proposal to set up a transnational education partnership in country X. This could involve a partnership with a commercial or state entity in country X and the university board must consider a range of proposals. According to the Higher Education Code of Governance, governing bodies should
“conduct their affairs in an open and transparent manner”.
It is a fundamental duty of university governing bodies to safeguard and promote the reputation of the institution. As the new partnership would involve a significant investment and carry both financial and reputational risks, the board of university A is therefore asked to take a decision on the proposals.
To support its deliberations, the board would receive a paper covering the following: the potential financial exposure and opportunity of each proposal; underlying social, demographic and economic data that underpins a market assessment; due diligence on potential partners, including reputational factors; and a summary of ethical and reputational concerns relating to country X. All aspects of the paper would be deliberated by the board. Following an extensive discussion of the financial and reputational impacts of the proposals, the board decides not to proceed with the partnership opportunity because, on balance, the risks are deemed to outweigh the opportunity.
Can the Minister explain whether, in this example, the transnational educational partnership described constitutes a private or public activity of a university? Would the fact that the board discussion included reference to reputational and ethical concerns of direct relevance to a higher education institution mean that members of the board could be subject to action under the provisions of the Bill?
How can boards fulfil their duty to safeguard and promote the reputation of their institution if they are not able to openly discuss and consider material facts that could impact on said reputation without fear of legal action, even if those considerations are not the sole basis for the eventual decision? How can boards fulfil their duty to conduct affairs in an open and transparent manner if the very fact of discussing issues of demonstrable and material relevance would be actionable under the provisions of the Bill?
I raise this example to tease out some of the grey areas that we might be forcing universities to consider and because I am worried about the chilling effect this may lead to. I do not think there is a situation in which a university would not consider the reputational impact of a partnership. But I can conceive of a situation where that consideration would not be as open and as widely shared as we have come to expect, in the way that we would like things to be done in this country.
In this group, we would like to understand the Minister’s response to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in particular, on whether there might be any other way of making clear who is subject to this. In relation to my Amendment 14, I would like to understand exactly how this will work for organisations—not just universities, but others as well—particularly in relation to the example I raised.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the thoughtful contributions from across the Committee. On the first day of Committee, which also touched on the scope of this Bill, we heard from the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Wallace, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Johnson. We discussed the Bill’s application to hybrid public authorities. Today, we have heard in slightly different terms from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, my noble friend Lady Noakes and, of course, from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. I will try and come back on her essay question if I can.
Obviously, we have carefully considered the points raised in these debates. I would like to expand on our view of the scope in relation to Amendments 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. As noble Lords have said, the Bill will apply to public authorities, as defined in Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. I would like to explain, in response to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that “public body” is a general term with no single legal definition. The Bill’s Short Title provides a general indication of the subject matter of the Bill, and it is not unusual for the Short Title to use different terminology from the Bill’s substantive provisions.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for interrupting. The Minister will be well aware that there is a particular use of the term “public body” by the Office for National Statistics, which means that debt incurred by a public body is counted as part of the national debt. That means that whether or not some of these hybrid public authorities are defined as public bodies matters a great deal to their financial planning. Again, the university sector is particularly concerned about this.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for raising that point again. It has been raised before and I am aware of it. We are talking about quite marginal sums here, so it will not be definitive, but I am sure we will come back to that point.
Perhaps I should explain that we have used the HRA definition because it has three important advantages. First, it is one that has been on the UK statute book for over 25 years, as has been explained, and places public authorities under important fundamental obligations that they have to observe. Organisations should also already know how it applies to them. Secondly, over those 25 years, the courts have further clarified its scope and identified a number of relevant factors. These include, but are not limited to, the body receiving a significant amount of public funding, the body carrying out acts in exercise of statutory powers and the body providing a public service. Thirdly, the definition ensures that private activity remains out of scope of the Bill—private activity that is rightly protected by convention rights, including freedom of speech.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister, but I am completely unclear about what a public body is after listening to that. Could she explain what a public function is? That might help us.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
That is a good point and a good question. The noble Baroness also gave a good example. I suggest that I take away the distinction regarding the public function and have a look at it, and that I come back on the long example she raised, which she said had been given to her by Universities UK, on 7 May when we are due to debate the university amendment in Committee.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I sort of accept that, but while my example referred to universities we could equally apply it to other organisations as well. I would not want to see that consideration narrowed just to the issue of universities.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness; that is an entirely fair point. We agree that the Bill is complex when it comes to understanding. I want to make sure that, when I answer questions on things such as public functions, I am giving good information that is thought through and thoughtful. I have tried to explain today why we are using the Human Rights Act. That has advantages, which is why the Government have gone down that road.
I should respond to the point about cultural institutions that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised. Some of them are in scope of the Bill in their public functions only, and I set out earlier a number of factors that courts would consider in deciding whether an act was a public act. The noble Lord also pointed out that the Bill contains the power to exclude bodies in its scope from the ban via regulations. The Government do not currently foresee the need to exclude such bodies, but this power will allow the Bill to evolve in line with government policy.
For all these reasons, I have tried to explain why we have presented the Bill in the way that we have. There is a lot of comfort to be taken from using the Human Rights Act, but I look forward to returning to some of the questions that have been asked. In the meantime, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
If I may intervene, this definition debate is like walking through a giant sticky pudding. Most Members of the Committee are utterly confused about exactly what public bodies and public authorities are, and about which institutions will be in the scope of the Bill and which will not.
I shall raise a specific example. Could the Minister tell the House about housing associations? They undertake many public functions, which is another term that the Minister introduced but has not been properly defined. They deliver social housing, for example. They do so in partnership with local authorities, often managing the social housing that is owned by local authorities. Will they be in scope of the Bill or not?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The answer I must give in the short term is that it depends a lot on the courts. I will look at housing associations; I know they have come up in other Bills that we have discussed, including how they are treated in government finance. The point about using the Human Rights Act definition is that you get a 25-year history of interpretation.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the Minister referred to the issues of public funding associated with universities and the national debt, and how that is counted. She said that these were marginal amounts of money. The UK university sector is worth £130 billion a year to the economy and employs three-quarters of a million people. Is that truly the definition of marginal? I declare an interest as chancellor of Cardiff University. Secondly, when we are looking at cultural organisations, does lottery money count as public or private money?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The honest answer is that I do not know about the lottery, but I will find out for the noble Baroness and write to her. On universities, of course she is right: very substantial sums of money, rightly, are involved in the education of our children. What I was explaining was that, at the margin of this activity—involving procurement and investment—the sum is relatively small compared with all that is done by universities.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
May I offer a constructive suggestion on the clarity that might be adduced between now and further stages? Picking up on the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, as I understand it, in 2003 the first case before the court to answer the question was Poplar housing association, where it was deemed that Poplar was a functional public authority under the Human Rights Act. That takes us to the useful report that was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, from the Lords and Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights back in 2003-04, entitled The Meaning of Public Authority under the Human Rights Act, which gets to the very matter we have been discussing. Obviously, jurisprudence has developed substantially since then. If the Minister could set out in writing how the Government regard the situation as having evolved since this very clear statement of the answer to the question we are struggling with this afternoon, that would perhaps nail the matter.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
The Minister has been enormously forbearing and we are very grateful for that. I wonder whether she could help us in this regard in relation to cultural bodies—here I must declare an interest, as an independent non-executive director of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. What would be the position of an orchestra that received some funding—by no means the majority of its funding—from the Arts Council, and which determined that, in the aftermath of an invasion of a sovereign nation by another sovereign nation, it no longer wanted to perform supportively of, say, the Bolshoi Ballet? What would be the position of such an orchestra, or of a board, that made that decision because it saw a real reputational risk, in the aftermath of the invasion of a sovereign country, of appearing in support of the national ballet company of the invading nation?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I understand the question. Of course, we now have government sanctions against Russia, so the question is wider. The suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, is a good one, which would perhaps help us to move forward. I have already said that I will look carefully at the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. The example of the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, is of a slightly different kind, asking rather the same question. Perhaps I can come back on that at the same time.
Lord Hain (Lab)
May I also ask a question? I am very grateful to the Minister, who has indeed been generous in responding, even if she has been unable to offer the Committee further clarification. Virtually all training in this country is privately provided, by private organisations, but publicly funded. Where do they fit into all this? They receive public money—from the DWP, say. I remember, as the former Secretary of State, visiting a lot of private providers. Where do they fit in? Do they come under the contractual relationship to which the Minister referred, or are they caught by the Bill?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
It depends, and it also depends on case law under the Human Rights Act, which I have undertaken to look at and come back to noble Lords.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I cannot resist suggesting that one definition of a “public function” is somewhere you are served warm white wine and canapés. That is a suggestion of how loose some of these terms can be.
The concern that a lot of us have about the Bill is that we are not entirely confident that the Government have thought through its full implications. The manifesto commitment was specific to boycotts against Israel and was concerned particularly with local authorities and universities. But we have a Bill here with a much wider set of definitions and a universal set of foreign states to which it applies, which raises a much larger number of questions. We also have a whole succession of loose definitions, which the DLUHC memorandum to the Delegated Powers Committee says, in effect, that we should not worry too much about, as we will do this all with regulations. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, would think that it is not necessarily always a good idea to leave everything to regulations. We are asking for greater clarity, certainty and, above all, precision, and a more limited potential scope for the Bill.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I will repeat the point that the Bill applies only to investment and procurement decisions, as everyone understands. We are trying to find a way forward on a manifesto commitment to ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts or disinvestment or sanction campaigns against foreign countries. Obviously, we need to discuss a little further how we deal with that, but I reiterate the point that I made about the use of the Human Rights Act, because we are trying to be helpful by calling on existing case law. The concern that I had about the amendments we are discussing today is that they might extend the Bill in a way that was not exactly where the Committee seemed to be coming from. I look forward to further discussions on this key matter.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would remove the regulation making power for Ministers to add exceptions to the bill by secondary legislation. This is to probe when Ministers would expect to use this power.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Collins is not moving this amendment, but I will do my best as his understudy.
This group is slightly different from the first, but we will probably touch on a number of the same sorts of issues, as it is all about trying to get some clarity. I take what the Minister said about this being only about procurement and investment decisions. Even so, the question of what procurement and investment are in relation to the Bill is something else that we might need to tease out. If an organisation’s primary activity is in another country, as the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, referred to, would the act of withdrawing from that activity be seen as a boycott under the Bill? If the Minister is saying that it would not, that is incredibly helpful information that may well soothe some of the concerns that will be raised in our consideration of this group.
My noble friend Lord Collins and I have tabled the amendments in this group in an attempt to tease out from the Minister exactly what the Government have in mind. I do not think that the public response to the Bill has been quite what the Government may have hoped or anticipated it would be when they embarked on this endeavour. Most public sector organisations are far too busy battling to provide services—often in extremely difficult circumstances—to their patients, students or service users to be following the back and forth of this debate. That serves to re-emphasise the importance of our considerations, and of making sure we do not land them with something that is unworkable and does not achieve the objectives.
Many of us understand what the Government set out to do when they started all this, so with that in mind, we tabled the probing Amendment 14A to discover in what circumstances Ministers anticipate using the power that they are giving themselves, which allows them to change the scope of the application of the Bill through secondary legislation. We are interested to hear what the Minister has to say about why Clause 3(1) and (2) are needed, and how she thinks they will work in practice. These subsections refer to the powers which allow the Secretary of State to remove any of the exemptions that are listed in the Bill, such as the one on national security. I cannot imagine that ever happening, but there is a whole list of exemptions in there—we are very pleased to see some of them. But why is that power seen to be needed? We cannot imagine a circumstance in which any of those exemptions would need to be removed. It seems an odd power for Ministers to take for themselves.
These decisions matter in the scope of the Bill, and they can have a profound impact on our relationships with other nations and our diplomatic efforts around the world, sometimes in incredibly sensitive situations. I have seen no evidence of Foreign Office engagement with, or even support for, the Bill, and it would be a concern if these decisions were to be taken by SI. We all want government to work interdepartmentally and for all decisions to be consulted upon internally in the right way, but we understand that is not always the situation. This concern was expressed at Second Reading, so can the Minister assure us that before any delegated legislation is proposed, appropriate input will always be sought from the Foreign Office?
We have a whole bunch of amendments which are probing—tongue in cheek is too strong a phrase but we could not think of any other way to do it. This is how we do things: we table amendments, discuss them and through that we get a better understanding of what the Government are trying to do. We tabled a handful to make a point—we could have gone on, but we did not—and I will run through them.
Amendment 22 would exempt schools and early years providers from the scope of the Bill. This was tabled with a view to finding out whether the Government intend early years settings to be involved. It comes back to the issue of what is and what is not a public body. Is a private school a public body? Is an independent nursery funded by a government childcare programme a public body? Is a childminder being paid indirectly by the state a public body?
Similarly, Amendment 23 would exempt charities providing public functions. We have heard the example of housing provision, because some housing providers are also charities.
Amendment 24 exempts community interest companies. There are thousands of such bodies up and down the country, engaged in all kinds of activities. Many are responsible for delivering public services, be that in social care, education, the arts or prisoner rehabilitation—virtually every area of activity you can think of. How are they to regard the Bill? What steps should they be taking to educate themselves and find out how to make sure that they do not do anything to make themselves fall foul of the Bill?
Our Amendment 25 exempts sporting bodies. Do the Government really want to get into this issue of sporting boycotts and which athletes should be doing what, where? If a sporting body did not deem that there was to be a boycott, but individual athletes decided that they did not want to take part in a tournament, what would happen then? There is pressure and debate, inevitably, whether it is part of a BDS campaign or not—but how you define what that is, I do not really know. How would that be considered? How could those people make sure that they are not, in any way, falling foul of this legislation?
We have also tabled an amendment asking for a list of public bodies. I was trying to be helpful and to work out the best way of getting this clarity. To answer the earlier point from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, it could be a list that the Minister takes the power to be able to amend and add to, although I completely accept that any schedule containing a list would very quickly need to be updated. We would not want to put something in a Bill that would not stand the test of time, but these schedules are amended on a fairly regular basis.
I asked the government website for a list of public bodies, and there is one. It contains 601 organisations. I doubt it is a comprehensive list, but it contains the 24 ministerial departments, 20 non-ministerial departments, 421 agencies and other public bodies, 113 high-profile groups—they are interesting—19 public corporations, including the BBC, and the three devolved Administrations.
I looked through this list and there were some public bodies listed that I thought we needed to discuss a little bit further. What would happen with some of our defence-related organisations? There is an exemption for national security, but how would that be defined in relation to the Bill? Would that need to be something that would be tested in court? The Minister sighs: I can well understand why. There are defence training academies and there are organisations that deal with the media in relation to defence and make decisions about what adverts, and so on, can be used. These are all public bodies that have duties relating to our relationships with other nations, and they could conceivably be asked to make decisions that would fall foul of this legislation.
The Government have not really thought about the implications for some of these bodies. I accept that some of them are probably relatively low-profile, small in scale or inactive. However, our job is to make sure that we make this as future-proof and workable as we can. That is why we have tabled Amendment 54, which asks for a list, because if your name is on a list, at least you can be alerted to the fact that this is happening and you can take the necessary steps to comply.
If not, it becomes very confusing for decision-makers. As we discussed at Second Reading, these will often be volunteers or people who have not had the necessary training and who are not following the proceedings here. We really would not want to criminalise people inadvertently, when the Government are seeking to do something that is really quite narrow and, as the Minister has said, involves mostly local authorities and universities, which could be done in a completely different way.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I shall speak in favour of Amendment 54, to which I have added my name. I also support the other amendments in this group. I listened carefully to the previous debate. As other noble Lords have noted, there is a strong overlap between this and the previous group.
Again as others have said, my concern is that, before we pass this Bill, we get clarity on who it covers. I declare a particular interest in that those of us on these Benches, along with other diocesan bishops of the Church of England, do carry out public functions. From time to time, these might bring an individual, in our corporate capacity as bishop of a diocese, within whatever definition of a public body or authority we might eventually land on.
In responding to an earlier group debated before the Recess, the Minister referred to the fact that mayors, police and crime commissioners—and, indeed, Government Ministers—also exercise public functions and hence fall under the scope of the Bill. However, since what these officeholders have in common is that they are elected or appointed primarily to exercise political functions, I can see the logic that maybe they should not use their investment and procurement functions in order to pursue a foreign policy in contrast to that of His Majesty’s Government. Notwithstanding the fact that some diocesan bishops are members of your Lordships’ House, is it really intended that we, along with the small charitable funds for which we are responsible in our corporate personality, should fall under the scope of the Bill? If we place those modest charitable funds with an external investment body, do we have constantly to ensure that that entity does not at any point seek to make restrictions in contravention of the Bill, by investing our money where it should not be—or not investing it where it ought to be?
Other Church institutions are at potentially greater risk of being inadvertently caught up in the scope of the Bill. Noble Lords will be familiar with the Church Commissioners, the body that manages the historic endowments of the Church of England, for the furtherance of the mission and ministry of the Church in perpetuity. It was my great privilege to chair the commissioners’ board, until the end of last year, as the delegated deputy of my most reverend friend the Archbishop of Canterbury. During my tenure, we grew our reputation, alongside our sister pensions board, as being among the world’s leading ethical and responsible investors.
As noble Lords well know, the commissioners require parliamentary approval to spend capital. Indeed, I spoke before the Easter Recess when we brought just such a measure before your Lordships’ House. What noble Lords may not know is that six state officeholders, including the Prime Minister and the Lord Speaker, are ex officio Church Commissioners, notwithstanding that the Government make no contribution to the commissioners’ coffers. Noble Lords will have noted a plea there. The ability of the commissioners’ investment team to deploy assets in furtherance of our mission objectives is not a case of anyone taking taxpayers’ money and using it to pursue their own independent foreign policy, yet, on some readings, these Church bodies may be seen as being within the scope of the Bill. Can the Minister clarify whether such bodies are indeed in scope?
Beyond the Church of England, there are many religious, charitable and other foundations—across a variety of faiths and of no faith—which perform functions in areas such as education. We have heard that referred to before. I am a grammar school boy. I benefited from a scholarship. My widowed mother could never have paid school fees. Such bodies raise and hold endowment funds for such purposes in order to enable students and pupils from less well-off backgrounds, like mine, to fully access and benefit from their services. I know that goes on because I am regularly invited to donate.
What is true of schools is even more true of the endowment funds of universities and colleges. Let us suppose that such an institution receives an offer of funds from a private philanthropist in the UK or beyond who wishes to make some stipulation as to where the endowment may or may not be invested. This is private money. Would this Bill mean that the foundation has to refuse the money, not because the country that it wishes to boycott is already on the list but because it may come on to a subsequent list at some future date?
The simplest way out of this confusion is for the Bill to contain either a schedule of the types of bodies to which it applies, as in the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, to which I have added my name, or to use a definition that points to a well-defined list in existing legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, offered that earlier today in the previous group. The advantage of requests under the Freedom of Information Act is that they are ubiquitous and long-standing. I know because I get them all the time and turn them down because they do not apply to me. As we have already heard, this means that most institutions are now very clear as to whether FoI applies to them. The same cannot be said for other definitions, even those contained in the Human Rights Act. So, in responding to this debate, can the Minister let us know how His Majesty’s Government are going to provide the clarity over scope that will be essential for this Bill to become a workable Act?
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest in the sense that my wife is a trustee of a major public orchestra. It does not receive public money, but I just make the point: if you do not receive public money, are you one of these public bodies? If you do, do you become one, and does that mean that you make a choice, which is quite a serious choice?
I also declare an interest because in my business we advise people on procurement and sustainability of procurement. I say to my noble friend that procurement is a very difficult issue on which to advise, because it is very widespread. What does it mean? It means almost everything from what might be called lavatory rolls at one end to procuring very large numbers of services or products. It can also cover the issue of the orchestra that procures another orchestra from abroad. As the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, said, it might have intended to bring an orchestra from, let us say, Russia to this country; if it then decides not to do so, is that the kind of decision that comes under the Bill?
I also have a concern, as the noble Baroness put forward, that the Secretary of State has an ability to remove from the exceptions things that for most of us are really important. If we are not to be allowed to procure on the basis of sustainability or climate change—things that really are existential issues—we have a serious problem, because on any definition of public bodies, the very bodies we are talking about are the ones that ought to be procuring and investing on those bases. The idea that this is only temporary, that it is in the Bill but can be removed by the arbitrary decision of the Secretary of State—and it could be arbitrary, because there is nothing in the Bill to say it is other than arbitrary—worries me considerably.
I rose not just to say that to my noble friend. I am afraid that the Government have a record of producing Bills that do not appear to have been carefully thought through. If the Bill had been produced to me as Secretary of State for the Environment, I would have sent it back and said, “There are too many questions in this, and I don’t want to have to present it to either House of Parliament because I can’t answer a number of the questions”. I do not blame my noble friend for not being able to answer some of these questions, but they are pretty fundamental, are they not? I just wonder what the Secretary of State responsible for the Bill said when it was brought in front of him. Did he ask what the definition of public body is or what a public function is? If he asked those questions, did he get answers? If he got answers, were they satisfactory, and why do we not have those answers when the questions are asked on the Floor of the House?
My worry is this. Out there large numbers of bodies, some of them very small, are worried that this will affect them. I do not believe that kind of legislation does us any good at all. Precision is absolutely crucial here, and we need to restrict this to a very clear, relatively small number of bodies and have a very clear understanding as to what it means.
If we take sporting bodies receiving government money—I cannot claim to be a sportsman and I declare no interests whatever on this front—it seems to me that if individual sportsmen wish to boycott something, the sporting body probably has to discuss that. If a body discusses that, it seems to me that under this Bill it can easily get itself into a position in which that is improper, if not illegal. Again, I do not see why people should have to ask themselves this question.
We are, at the moment, seeing a very inelegant discussion about individuals’ decisions on tax matters, pretty unfairly in most cases I have heard. It is difficult to understand quite a lot of the detailed tax legislation, but producing this legislation will ask a whole lot of other people to understand very detailed and extremely difficult concepts. I say to my noble friend that all I want is to feel that I could vote for something that I understand, and that other people can understand, which does not reach beyond the necessary areas and actually achieves some good. Those are three perfectly reasonable requests, but I am not sure that the Bill meets any of them so far.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, we are dealing with a Bill that is in highly controversial territory. If we have sloppy definitions in the Bill, it will encourage litigation. It would be a strange thing if we passed a Bill with a lot of problems around definitions that causes, over time, more people to raise issues around sources of investment through the courts. With all due respect to the Government of Israel, from time to time they have shown quite an enthusiasm for using litigation to make their points.
Also, picking up from the last group of amendments, we live in a rather different time in terms of who raises money for public services, particularly capital money for investments. If we take health and care, the areas I know something about, there is a lot more interest in the idea of going into the private sector—private equity and PFI being good examples—to try to raise money to build facilities of some kind or another for which the public sector has found it difficult to find the money. People who raise funding and use it to provide public services perform a kind of public function. If we have a sloppy Bill, they leave themselves exposed to probing of where their sources of money come from. You then run the risk of driving these people away from the kind of investments in public service that we may need to get some of our old capital structures improved over time. I suggest to the Committee that if we do not tighten up these definitions, we run a series of risks that are self-defeating to any Government.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friends for these probing amendments, and even more grateful after hearing the contributions from Members opposite that they have elicited. A number of very serious questions have been raised about ambiguity and lack of clarity.
I hope that the Minister is not tempted to reply with words that are meant to reassure us, such as, “Don’t worry. Everything will be all right. The Secretary of State will decide”. I must confess to the Minister that, the older I get, the less confidence I have in Secretaries of State. I suspect that, in a few months’ time, she will begin to have less confidence than she currently has. There is a good reason for that: all of us—I emphasise this—whatever side of the House we are on, need to be wary of overpowerful government.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I intervene briefly, if I may, in support of Amendment 54, which is calling for a comprehensive list to be laid before Parliament. This debate is getting a bit metaphysical about public bodies, and it is revealing that there is no authoritative shared definition of a public body and no single authoritative list of public bodies. The term “public body”, on which the Bill rests, is itself very hard to define. I have two observations about this.
First, we therefore reach out to lists of bodies that have been developed for other purposes in other legislation. There are candidates around: one is the Freedom of Information Act. I am looking across at the Lib Dem Benches, because I vividly remember a debate within the coalition about whether or not universities should be covered by the Freedom of Information Act. The Lib Dem members of the coalition thought that that information should be available from universities. We had a negotiation as part of some wider deal and agreed that universities should be covered by the Freedom of Information Act. At no point in those exchanges did people think that that meant we were defining them as public bodies. We were simply trying, for the purposes of where the information should be and what should be covered by the Freedom of Information Act, under pressure from a member of the coalition, to include universities. It was not intended to be an authoritative definition for other purposes of legislation. In these circumstances, I think that it is sensible to say that we should just have a list of the bodies for which this legislation is most relevant and not try to reach out to find some other list or some permanent definition on all accounts.
There is a second reason, which, if I may say so, is particularly relevant for us on these Benches. There is a paradox in the Conservative position here: the supporters of the Bill are quite keen to stop sanctions, boycotts and anti-investment campaigns by as many bodies as possible. That means that Conservatives are currently reaching out for a very ambitious definition of “public body” because they want as many as possible to be covered.
I am not totally sure that, in the long run, this is an approach that Conservatives will not find comes back to haunt Conservatives, who may think they have ended with an overambitious definition of “public body” that in turn gets used for many other purposes. There are good reasons for a highly precise and limited list of bodies to be covered by this legislation—anything else and you are on very slippery ground, and we may find it has consequences that, even within my own party, people come to regret.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I thank the proposers of these amendments for offering an opportunity to establish, as many have said today, some precision and clarity on the range and definition of the public bodies referred to in the Bill. The Minister has an opportunity to reassure us and many groups who fear the implications of this Bill.
In Amendment 22, we are talking about schools or nurseries. The Minister has said we are talking about procurement, but do the Government really intend that school governors should sit poring over the school meals procurement to see whether they are contravening the terms of this Bill in any way? Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said earlier, would they also contravene the terms of the Bill even in talking about it and taking advice?
Do the Government intend that charity commissioners and trustees should take into account the implications of this Bill, and perhaps face vexatious challenges to contest some of the decisions that they have already made? The fact that the definitions are so poor, as many people have said here today, will leave open legal action and vexatious possibilities of weaponising this legislation, by the whole scope that seems to be covered. But the Minister can reassure us today, or in writing, that the list of public bodies covered is, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said, closely defined and clearly identifiable by those whom it affects.
Particularly concerning, as highlighted in Amendment 26, is the implication for charitable organisations delivering public functions in terms of overseas aid and humanitarian work. Often founded on moral principles, as the right reverend Prelate said, many of these organisations have foundations which relate to moral principles and values, which they take into account when taking their decisions, whether on procurement or on investment. I believe territorial considerations must also be key to the functioning of these groups and charities. I agree we need a clear definition, and I would also like to understand and be reassured by the Minister on the reason for the additional powers being given to Ministers.
On the last amendment on this list, we should really have a much better idea—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who said that we are swimming through a sticky pudding, was absolutely right. We are totally unclear about the terms and the scope of this Bill, and I hope that we may be reassured in the course of this Committee.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I have two questions relating to the issue of what constitutes a public body. My major interest in this Bill is Clauses 12 and 13, about local government pension schemes. It is interesting that it requires a separate section of this Bill to deal with local government pension schemes; that clearly indicates that these organisations are not public bodies. The Government’s commitment was in relation to public bodies and yet the Bill is being extended to these other organisations, which require their own section in the Bill, as they are clearly not covered by the general term “public bodies”. Perhaps the Minister could confirm or explain that particular point.
I have a different point relating to pension schemes. Some of these public bodies that we have been talking about have their own funded pension schemes, which are making investment and procurement decisions. As I understand it, because they are separate trusts, they are not themselves public bodies. But they belong to a public body and they are associated with the public body, so it is possible, within the bounds of trusts law, for those pension scheme trustee bodies to consider a decision that might potentially fall foul of this legislation. Therefore, we have the odd situation that the trustees can discuss these matters, but presumably the sponsoring organisation, which does count as a public body and is covered by the Bill, cannot discuss what the trustees whom they nominate should or should not be doing. There is a certain contradiction here, and again I invite the Minister to explain how that will operate in practice.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly go back to the Government’s own list of public bodies on GOV.UK. Of that list of public bodies, there are 18 listed for the Department for Education, none of which is a university. The Minister referred to overlapping definitions in the Bill. I have been sitting here and thinking about that, and wondering where the University of Buckingham sits in the Government’s concept of where universities lie, because that is a private university but one which is fulfilling exactly the same functions as all the other universities in the UK. Those other universities are, of course, exempt charities and so we are on a whole series of conflicting paths here, with just one aspect of the definition of public bodies that this Bill seems to wish to encompass. I raise these issues so that the Minister can perhaps give us some of her thoughts on these overlapping definitions and where they actually sit within the Bill.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, first, we are in the territory of the chilling effect, are we not? If there is a very large number of bodies which are not going to be sure how far they come within the scope of this Bill, they will be very nervous about doing things that they would otherwise do. That is why leaving it so unclear as to how far the definitions of this Bill stretch over the sector, in which public and private institutions, and public and private functions, overlap so closely, is highly undesirable.
Secondly, this clearly will require very substantial subordinate legislation. I think it is the sense of this House that it is a bad thing to pass Bills that need too much subordinate legislation. Yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, whom I regard as an extremely good friend, said to me that the subordinate legislation under the Elections Act, which we passed in 2022, is now approaching 1,000 pages, and that the Electoral Commission is spending a considerable amount of its time providing guidance for local authority electoral registration officers on what this means for them. That is bad legislation; we want to avoid that again here.
Thirdly, there have been occasions, as others are aware, where lists of public bodies have been provided. The Minister will remember the SI on trade union levies being taken, or no longer being taken, automatically from pay scales for particular public bodies. That had a list, at the end, in the schedule, of over 200 bodies, which included some quite interesting ones such as the Scottish salmon council, and various semi-charitable local institutions to do with, as I remember, care homes and nurseries.
Fourthly, to add to the question of universities, what universities are most concerned about is whether or not the student loan book, which is a very large sum, is included in the Treasury’s calculation of national debt. That is not a marginal issue; it is quite important. That is why definitions such as this and how they are used by different parts of government and recognised be the courts are extremely important.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, on the previous group of amendments I explained that I was concerned about the lack of certainty involved in the definitions. However, I feel the debate on this group has engineered more uncertainty than in fact exists.
My noble friend the Minister explained that the Government used the Human Rights Act definition because there is 25 years of jurisprudence, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, helpfully suggested that the Government update their understanding of what that definition means. I believe that most of the bodies know whether or not they are subject to the public sector duty involved in the Human Rights Act—not all of them, and there are certainly issues at the margin, but we need to get this in proportion. For example, I suspect that most of the bodies that the right reverend Prelate referred to already know whether or not they are subject to the human rights duty in Section 6 of the Human Rights Act. So although I continue to believe that clarity is important and that we need to find ways of achieving that clarity, we should not overstate the difficulties of establishing who is within the terms of the Bill and who is not.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, could the Minister comment on the actual functions of some of these so-called public bodies? I assume that secondary schools will be regarded as public bodies. They have a wide range of functions focusing on educating the children who are pupils there, but they are also responsible for the development and improvement of their school buildings. Let us take the example of a school that has an extremely rich alumnus who wishes to reward it for the excellent job it did in educating him, and allocates to it a very large sum of money to put up a completely new building: will that be caught by the Bill’s scope, so that the school has to decide whether it will be found to be breaking the law because it takes into account moral and ethical considerations in its purchase of goods for providing a very large new school building? These are the sorts of questions that people will face, and I am not sure that the governors of most state secondary schools will be terribly familiar with Section 6 of the Human Rights Act; nor will they find it that easy to get advice about it. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that sort of situation.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
I take the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, just made in respect of schools, but I also agree with the point the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made about the jurisprudence that has arisen, which has clarified this for a number of institutions, including, I think the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester will find, the Church of England. In fact, I believe the first case to test whether a body in the Church was indeed a public authority was Aston Cantlow Parochial Church Council, which was trying to exact a chancel repair charge. In the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords at the time, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, deemed that the parochial council was not a public authority. Many details have been laid out by the courts quite clearly over the years, but if the Government could adduce that on to a single sheet of paper in the way that has been described, it would be very helpful.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, as I set out in my response to the previous group, the Government chose to apply the ban to public authorities as defined by Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. It is a great advantage that your Lordships, perhaps in contrast to the other place, scrutinise Bills in this way. I cannot accept that it is a sloppy Bill—it is a good Bill—but I think that concerns have been overstated. My noble friend Lady Noakes just explained why, very eloquently. We need clarity. Most bodies know whether or not they are covered.
There is another good reason for using the Human Rights Act definition—obviously, I am happy to look further at its implications, as I have said—which is that the Government intended to apply the Bill to a broad range of bodies when they are exercising public functions. This was to ensure a consistent approach to foreign policy across the UK’s public institutions, to stop public bodies legitimising divisive campaigns, which can undermine community cohesion, and to allow public bodies to focus on their core purpose when engaging in procurement and investment. That was the intention of the manifesto commitment that I mentioned in the previous group.
These amendments seek, rightly, to probe the scope of the Bill’s definition of public authorities, but they also probe the need for the power to make exceptions to the ban. I will try to address each in turn.
I am very glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester has joined the debate. The Church of England would be in the Bill’s scope only to the extent that it exercises public functions. We have heard a little about the interpretation of that in the courts.
Before I address the specific amendments, I remind the Committee that the Bill will not create any new criminal offences. That is a very important point. I also take this opportunity to address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, which was picked up by my noble friend Lord Deben, on orchestras. Orchestras are very unlikely to be regarded as public authorities. Moreover, withdrawing from an event is unlikely to be regarded as a procurement decision for the purposes of our Bill. The definition of a procurement decision does not include contracts where it is the public authority providing the service.
I can also reassure the noble Baroness who raised the issue that defence contracts are also exempt from the Bill. In addition, for contracts in scope, the Bill already contains an exception to the ban for national security considerations. In practice, if a case is reported to an enforcement authority it will look at whether the public authority had regard to any of the exemptions to the Bill—for example, the national security exemptions —during the decision-making process. Evidence of this might include if the public authority shows that it was following guidance from the UK Government, or became aware, for example, that a supplier was engaged in espionage.
Amendments 26 and 23 probe whether charitable organisations would come under the Bill’s scope. Charities would be captured by the ban only if they were performing public functions. It is the Government’s understanding that most charities will not be covered by the Bill. I hope that provides reassurance to noble Lords.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt, but I was just checking the relevant parts of the Bill relating to enforcement. The Minister said that no new criminal actions arise from the Bill. What we do have is the ability of the Secretary of State to have enforcement powers that include monetary penalties. If people refuse to pay the monetary penalties, what would that result in?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Perhaps I might continue on the points raised in the debate and come back to that point. It is a very reasonable question but I am not going to answer it without advice. However, there are no criminal sanctions in this Bill, which there often are in the Bills we consider in this House.
There may be a small number of cases where charities are delivering public functions; they would therefore be captured in respect of those functions. However, it is important to note that it does not mean that a charity is a public authority just because it is in receipt of public funding.
The Bill will not apply to charities’ private functions. For example, for universities, decisions that are part and parcel of delivering higher education would be public functions so they would be in scope of the ban. If a charity did have public functions in scope of the ban, it would apply only to investment and procurement decisions made within the public functions. That is a point that I need to emphasise. Therefore, the ban would not restrict how such bodies decide, for example, to distribute humanitarian aid, which was the subject of the earlier debate.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
I think the Minister, or those who advise her, has misunderstood the point I raised in relation to the orchestra. The orchestra is putting on a concert version of “The Rite of Spring” as part of a Stravinsky festival. That festival is being held in a number of cities throughout the world. It is booked to appear at the new opera house in Dubai. It puts out a tender for ballet companies to provide the dance section of “The Rite of Spring” for this concert version. It specifically precludes in its procurement—so perhaps those who advise the Minister can reflect on this—the national ballet company of a country that has recently invaded a sovereign nation because it does not wish reputationally to be linked with that national ballet company. That is quite clearly a procurement. Is the Minister saying that that would not be covered by the Act and that the fact that the orchestra concerned receives a proportion of its funding from the public purse does not make it fall within the ambit of the Act? It is to that question specifically that an answer would be helpful. If she cannot give that answer, it demonstrates very clearly the concern about ambiguity that all contributors to this debate have articulated.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, has concentrated on the procurement decision, but before you get to decide whether a procurement decision is relevant, you have to decide whether it is a public authority—so it will come back to whether the orchestra is a public authority before getting to any issue about whether a procurement is covered.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
That is what we want an answer to: is it a public authority for that purpose because it receives public funding?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am glad that we have focused on an individual example because, in my experience, this always helps us to clarify our own thinking. I think that, if the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, will allow me, I will take the orchestra example away, along with the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, work out the right approach and get back to noble Lords, perhaps in discussions outside the Chamber.
We all want the same thing: to make sure that the Bill applies to the right bodies in the right way. That is what we are seeking to do, which is why we started with human rights legislation, which is often a popular start, for good reasons, to legislation. However, we have, as we do, scrutinised the detail of legislation today and have come up with some extremely good questions. It behoves us to go away. I am sure we can find good answers and use them to improve the Bill, which is, as I said when I introduced the Bill, what we are determined to do to get a good Bill that leaves this House in the right place and delivers on our manifesto commitment.
I turn now to Amendment 25, which seeks to probe whether a national governing body of sport that is in receipt of public funding would be in scope of the Bill. It raises some of the same questions and issues that we are going to consider. It is possible that a governing body of sport could be in scope of the Bill. If a sporting body is considered to be a public body under the Human Rights Act, on the basis that it exercises some public functions, the ban would apply only to the public functions exercised by that body, but a sporting body being in receipt of public funding would not in itself be enough for it to be considered a public authority. These bodies play a significant public role.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We have got the public function thing again, which the Minister has referred to frequently. She has clarified that public funding is part of what will determine whether the sporting governing body is a public body, but she said that would be relevant only in the conduct of public functions. I am not clear on this, given that at the end of the previous group we were promised a response on what a public function is. I think the Minister said that she would follow up in writing, but she is relying on that term frequently in her response to this group of amendments, which I do not think is helpful, unless she can say something at this stage about what she considers a public function to be.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that we need to use the term “public function” with care and to be entirely clear what it means, but the receipt of public funding is another legitimate issue that we need to understand—and understand the scale as well.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As an example, if a young people’s badminton team were to be taking a tour of south-east Asia and felt it did not want to take part in events in certain regions of China and came under some pressure on this from parents or other groups, how would that be? You could say that enabling young people to engage in sport is perhaps a public function. I do not know. How would that be considered?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
That example would not be procurement or investment, so it would be outside the scope of the Bill. However, the noble Baroness has raised the point. Sporting bodies can be within scope, as I explained, in procurement and investment decisions. The reason for this is that these bodies play a significant role in public life and it would send a very unhelpful signal if we were to single out governing bodies of sport as an exception to the Bill.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am sorry to keep on about this, but there is then a need to define procurement. In the example that I am, perhaps tenuously, relying on, there would surely be procurement of transport services, accommodation services, catering services and venues.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
It seems to me that the issue here is boycotting a sporting event, and that is not a procurement or investment decision—but I have already undertaken to look carefully at these individual examples, because we all want to understand exactly what we are talking about and to come to the right outcome.
Amendment 24 would carve out community interest companies. While it is not inconceivable that a community interest company might perform a public function, neither the purpose nor the structure of a community interest company naturally lends itself to that. It is not, by and large, what the Bill is designed for.
Amendment 22 seeks to probe whether schools and early years providers, such as nurseries, are in scope of the Bill. I can confirm that all publicly funded schools will be captured by the ban when they are performing public functions, and some early years providers will also be public authorities on that definition. Other early years providers may be captured to the extent that they are performing a public function. However, I will take noble Lords’ concerns on that issue away, because I think it comes into the same category as the other two examples we will be looking at.
Privately funded independent schools—and I think this will probably apply to private universities—will be captured to the extent that they perform a public function. However, they are unlikely to perform functions of a public nature in scenarios where they are captured as hybrid public authorities, which we discussed on the previous group. The ban will ensure that publicly funded schools remain shared spaces for all, and the Bill will ensure that schools and early years providers can remain focused on their core duties, rather than being distracted by divisive campaigns promoted by BDS and others.
Lord Deben (Con)
If a Church of England or Catholic school says it will not buy from a country that is persecuting Christians, that is concentrating on its core responsibility. It is not avoiding it; it is what it is there for, which is to uphold the faith. Are we really going to dictate whether or not it should make that decision?
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has an advisory speaking time of 20 minutes. May I respectfully suggest that we leave any further interventions until the end to allow the Minister to answer as many of the existing questions as possible?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I have already said that I am trying to answer the many questions noble Lords have asked. There have been a great many interventions on me and I have been very patient. I have also made some undertakings to try to clarify some of these points, including childcare, which would cover the schools that my noble friend Lord Deben mentioned.
Perhaps I could turn to Amendment 54, which requires
“the Secretary of State to provide a comprehensive list”,
of the bodies in scope
“before the provisions in Clause 1 can be brought into force”.
The Government are not able to provide a comprehensive list of bodies captured by the Human Rights Act definition. However, I have tried to be clear on the categories of bodies that includes. To repeat, these include: central government agencies and non-departmental public bodies; UK Government Ministers and devolved Ministers; local authorities; administering authorities of local government pension schemes; universities and higher education providers with public functions; publicly funded schools; and some museums and galleries in receipt of significant public funding.
As with any definition, there will be further cases at the margins where it is impossible to generalise without the full facts of a case. That, of course, is where the courts come in. Legislation often uses general definitions—for example, the Human Rights Act from which we have taken the scope or the scope of bodies covered by obligations under public procurement legislation.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 14A. This would remove from the Bill the powers granted to the Secretary of State to amend the schedule to make exceptions to the ban for certain bodies, functions and types of considerations, and to amend or remove regulations made under these powers. I understand concerns about the use of subordinate legislation—the noble Lord knows that—and we are lucky that we have such a good committee to supervise its use. However, these powers are necessary to ensure that the ban can evolve over time and operate as intended, for example in response to emerging global events.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, that the FCDO is fully supportive of this legislation, and all regulations made under this Bill would follow the normal procedure of cross-governmental clearance and, of course, be approved by the Foreign Secretary. In the event that in future the ban has unintended consequences for a certain public authority, it is right for the Secretary of State to have the power to exempt that body, or a function of the body, from the ban via statutory instrument—I think today’s debate shows that that is necessary—and this would be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses.
These powers will also allow the Secretary of State to exempt certain types of considerations from the ban. For example, Ministers may decide to exempt a narrow type of consideration to ensure the ban can evolve in line with government policy. The powers future-proof the legislation to ensure the ban can continue to operate effectively and mitigate against any unforeseen circumstances.
Before I close, I should perhaps address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on the environment. The ban applies only to decisions that target a particular country or territory. For example, environmental campaigns, including ones against fossil fuels that are not country specific, are outside the scope of this Bill. I also reassure my noble friend that the power in Clause 3 cannot be used to remove any exception to the ban in the Bill as passed by Parliament. There is a schedule the noble Lord can look at, which includes environmental misconduct, which we are coming on to discuss.
I hope, finally, to address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, with regard to why there is a separate clause in the Bill for local government pension schemes. The administering authorities for local government pension schemes are public authorities under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act. Capturing administering authorities of LGPS in a bespoke provision means that the Pensions Regulator can use its existing powers and procedures to enforce the BDS ban for the administering authorities of LGPS. That avoids the Pensions Regulator setting up a separate enforcement system for the Bill. I am happy to have a discussion with him; we often discuss pensions issues which are of limited interest sometimes to the whole House.
I hope that my response to this group of amendments —importantly, alongside the undertakings I gave in response to my previous group which we expanded a little to bring in telling examples—will help the Committee to understand why we have chosen the Human Rights Act definition and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I look forward to further discussion.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hope I am able to intervene at this point before the noble Baroness sits down—some of these new rules that have been introduced for Committee stage I find incredibly damaging to our ability to properly scrutinise this Bill; I raised that point at the committee.
The noble Baroness said that the FCDO fully supports this legislation. She may recall that, at the previous Committee day, I specifically raised this question because I wanted to inform the Committee of the precise nature of the FCDO’s advice following United Nations resolutions regarding the Occupied Territories, which are specifically mentioned in this Bill. Perhaps she can take this opportunity to tell us how that advice could potentially impact the sort of investment and procurement decisions that organisations might make. There is advice issued by the FCDO in relation to the Occupied Territories.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
We are going to be discussing the Occupied Territories in a group two or three later in this Bill and I do not have an answer to the noble Lord on this point today, except to reiterate that this Bill has been collectively agreed. I was particularly talking about the arrangements for regulations which, in turn, had been collectively agreed. I explained the system that when you have a new statutory instrument, there is a write-round which involves all relevant Ministers. In this particular case, that would certainly include the Foreign Secretary.
Lord Warner (CB)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, can I ask her to take away the point I was ineptly trying to raise earlier? If a public body—we could take as examples housing, health and care—has an investment decision to make on a new building and/or new services, is it expected to find out more about the sources of the money going to be used to enable it to perform public functions and provide new public buildings? Are they expected to go that far?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am grateful for that point, but I am not sure I entirely understand it, so perhaps I can offer to meet the noble Lord or to write to him and make sure that he gets an answer in good time.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I was not expecting this group to elicit quite the debate it did, but it was incredibly helpful and welcome in exposing what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, called “sloppy”. He makes a fair point. The Minister said that she did not like that phrase but, given that we have been unable to agree a definition of a “public function”, unable to elicit a proper definition of “procurement” and have not agreed what a “public body” is by any means, I have to agree with him.
This is not us being mendacious or deliberately creating problems for the Government, although you could argue that is a fair thing for the Opposition to want to do; that is not what we are doing here. Like the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Deben, we are trying to get to the real nub of how this Bill enables the Government to fulfil the commitments that we all accept they made in their manifesto. We understand that the Government want to stand by those commitments, but we are so concerned that the legislation before us could end up straying into so many more areas. I honestly do not think that when this went into the manifesto, anybody had sporting bodies or schools in mind, yet here we are with the Minister unable to answer some quite straightforward examples, including a very good one from my noble friend Lord Boateng. I regret that.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Collins that, when the Government Whip pops up to try and rescue the Minister from having to take too many more interventions, that is fair enough, those are now the rules, but this place is supposed to be able to spend a bit more time in Committee—
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think that is a little unfair. The noble Baroness knows that I am always ready to take interventions and have continued to do so. I am doing my best to do the job that this Chamber does so well. We have used the Human Rights Act definitions and this Chamber has decided that that causes problems. I am sure those are soluble.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I absolutely did not mean any disrespect whatever to the Minister. She is completely right; she has never declined to take an intervention and has been very accessible on every occasion that I have needed her to be so outside this Chamber. The point I am making is that these considerations in Committee intentionally sometimes involve a lot of back and forth, because we are trying to get to the point—trying to understand, to improve and to do our jobs.
This has been a helpful debate. We leave with a few more questions even than we arrived with. I am sure we will come back to some of this in later stages but, for today, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Hain
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) may not amend the Schedule to remove environmental misconduct as an exception from the application of section 1.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot remove environmental misconduct as an exception in the Schedule by regulations.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 15 seeks to answer the question: what would happen if a public authority imposed a boycott campaign which related to Israel and arose as a result of environmental misconduct in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, illegal under international law?
Under the Bill’s Schedule, the Clause 1 prohibition on the consideration of moral or political disapproval is lifted, so far as that
“consideration … relates to environmental misconduct”.
This includes, according to the Schedule,
“consideration related to the possibility of environmental misconduct having taken place or taking place in the future”,
while the definition of environmental misconduct here
“means conduct that … amounts to an offence, whether under the law of a part of the United Kingdom or any other country or territory, and … caused, or had the potential to cause, significant harm to the environment, including the life and health of plants and animals”.
Surely such accusations of environmental misconduct should also apply to the State of Israel. There is credible evidence that Israel has engaged in such misconduct, particularly through the actions of the Israel Defense Forces, in its occupation and military actions.
In its military action in Gaza, there are serious questions to be raised about environmental misconduct. Dr Saeed Bagheri, scholar of international law at the University of Reading, stated of Israel in January this year that there may
“be evidence to suggest that they have acted contrary to the International Committee of the Red Cross … position that the prohibition on inflicting widespread, long-term and severe harm to the natural environment is a rule of customary international law”.
He added:
“The actions by the Israeli Defence Force in Gaza have left chemicals from white phosphorus weapons that could linger in the environment for years. This can have a long term impact on the soil, affecting the growth of crops, and in Gaza agriculture takes up about a quarter of land. For individual farmers and their communities, this pollution and its long-term impacts could be devastating”.
However, such questions far pre-date the current horror in Gaza. The Institute for Middle East Understanding has set out a long list of allegations of environmental misconduct. In its actions in the Occupied Territories, long-standing allegations against Israel have been made about the deliberate destruction of olive trees and olive orchards; at least 2.5 million trees have been destroyed since 1967, yet Palestinians depend on these trees as a primary source of food and income. The destruction of natural wildlife since October has been stark: a recent estimate states that around 4,300 acres of trees and plant life have been cleared around the Gaza Strip by Israeli forces, not to mention the complete devastation of the natural and built environment within the Gaza Strip.
What of Israel siphoning off water supplies from the Occupied Territories? This has caused a permanent drop in the West Bank’s water table and distorted water flows, damaging agriculture and increasing flood and drought vulnerability. In February this year, the IDF itself confirmed that it is dumping seawater into tunnels and waterways below Gaza, an act which the director-general of the Geneva Water Hub described as polluting and contaminating, and poisoning Gaza’s aquifer.
We also know that Israel discharges 52 million cubic yards of untreated sewage and other hazardous materials each year into the West Bank. The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories reported:
“Israel’s environmental policy in the West Bank—including situating polluting waste treatment facilities there—is part and parcel of the policy of dispossession and annexation it has practiced in the West Bank for the past fifty years.”
In the West Bank, and in contravention of the Geneva convention, Israel has appropriated most water sources for itself and restricts Palestinian access to them. Of course, this is not Israeli state or Israel Defense Forces activity alone; the administration of this occupation relies on a vast number of agencies and companies. Is it not reasonable for any public authority doing due diligence on environmental matters to prefer to disengage with any companies or agencies which are involved in such acts?
Many of these instances could feasibly fall foul of international law, such as Rome statute prohibitions on inflicting damage to the natural environment, Hague regulations provisions on natural resource use, and customary international humanitarian law principles on hostilities to the natural environment, to name a few. But the matter goes beyond the practical application of these examples raised. The question is also: can we exempt Israel and the Occupied Territories from the Schedule’s considerations without denying the very real possibility, now or in the future, of Israeli state or corporate environmental misconduct?
Israel’s human destruction of Gaza is being compounded by an environmental crisis. In Rafah, large family groups have been living cramped together with no running water or fuel, while surrounded by running sewage and waste piling up. Like the rest of Gaza’s residents, the air they breathe is heavy with pollutants and the water carries disease. Beyond the city streets lie ruined orchards and olive groves, and farmland destroyed by bombs and bulldozers. Forensic Architecture, a London-based research group, has shown how family farms close to Gaza’s border with Israel, cultivated for generations, have been destroyed, their orchards uprooted and replaced by military roads. Israel has suggested it could make this sort of thing permanent to create buffer zones along the border, where a lot of Palestinian farms are sited.
An analysis of satellite imagery, reported by the Guardian newspaper recently, showed the destruction of nearly half of Gaza’s tree cover and farmland—mainly because of the military onslaught by the Israel Defense Forces but also because, starved of fuel, desperate Gaza residents have cut down trees to burn for cooking or heating. Not only have olive groves and farms been reduced to rubble but soil and groundwater have been contaminated by munitions and toxins. The sea is full of sewage and waste. The air is polluted by smoke and particulates. The impact on Gaza’s ecosystems and biodiversity is colossal, leading to calls for it to be recognised as ecocide and investigated as a possible war crime.
United Nations environmental experts report massive amounts of debris and hazardous material in Gaza, with harmful substances such as asbestos, heavy metals, fire contaminants, unexploded ordnance and hazardous chemicals. When Israel cut off fuel to Gaza after the 7 October terrorist pogrom, power cuts meant that wastewater could not be pumped to treatment plants, leading to 100,000 cubic metres of sewage a day spewing into the sea. The sheer scale and long-term impact of all this environmental destruction has led to calls for it to be investigated as a potential war crime, and to be classed as ecocide, which covers damage done to the environment by deliberate or negligent actions.
Under the Rome statute, which governs the International Criminal Court, it is a war crime to intentionally launch an excessive attack knowing that it will cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment. The Geneva conventions require that warring parties do not use methods of warfare that cause
“widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment”.
Forensic Architecture argues that:
“The destruction of agricultural land and infrastructure in Gaza is a deliberate act of ecocide”.
I put Amendment 15 to your Lordships’ Committee with the intention of asking: how should a public authority act if it wishes to disengage with a company or enterprise which may be involved in acts such as these, which could amount to environmental misconduct under UK or international law, if that company is Israeli or if it engages in alleged misconduct overseen by the State of Israel?
The Bill is clear that the Schedule considerations override Clause 1 prohibitions on boycotts. However, it is not clear whether the Schedule also applies to Clause 3, which likewise overrules Clause 1. This could present a glaring contradiction in the current formulation of this Bill, and one which I very much hope the Government and the Minister will respond to. It needs to be resolved through this amendment. I hope the Minister will come back on Report having accepted the amendment to deal with this matter.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 32A and 32B. Amendment 32A would expand the environmental grounds on which a public body is allowed to make certain economic decisions. Amendment 32B would extend the definition of environmental misconduct to include damage, regardless of whether it is legal or illegal, and to include species, habitats and the natural world.
It is quite positive that this Bill at least recognises that public authorities should be able to consider environmental issues when deciding whether to spend taxpayers’ money on goods and services purchased from outside the UK, or when deciding how to invest the pensions of public sector workers and retirees. However, this environmental carve-out is far too narrow. I do not understand how public authorities can be forced to ignore environmental destruction as long as that destruction is not a criminal offence. I have worked closely with Friends of the Earth on these amendments, and they were also tabled in the Commons by my honourable friend Caroline Lucas.
We are all deeply concerned about this fundamentally flawed Bill and the impact it will have on public bodies’ legitimate procurement or investment decisions about companies or products that are destroying the natural environment, including pollution overseas and climate breakdown. All public bodies must be free to avoid investment in fossil fuels, which are contributing to climate breakdown.
This Bill sets out an uneven treatment between local or UK-based businesses and foreign enterprises, particularly where they are owned or controlled by a foreign state. A local council will remain entitled to refuse to purchase timber from a business that is clear-cutting the local woodland, but if it is in a foreign country linked to a foreign Government then the council will be prohibited from even considering the impact of clear-cutting woodlands and rainforests around the world. These types of considerations—so-called ESG criteria—are now quite routine, even mundane, among both the public and private sector. Public authorities should be entitled to consider the same types of environmental issues that they would consider if interacting with a UK-based business. There is no justification for it to be any other way, other than a totally misguided belief that the nature, land, air and water in the United Kingdom is inherently more valuable or deserving of protection than that outside the United Kingdom. That sounds slightly colonial to me.
Why have the Government chosen to draft this so tightly, so that the only environmental considerations are whether or not the environmental damage constitutes a criminal offence? I hope the Minister can see the glaring flaws in this approach and the obvious harms it will lead to. I ask noble Lords across the Committee, including the Minister, to work with us on this issue so that we can bring something that we can all support to Report. Environmental crime must not be set as a bar beyond which anything goes in public procurement and the investment of public pensions.
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill
Tuesday 7th May 2024
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 38-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (2 May 2024)
Lord Verdirame
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (2)(b) may include descriptions of considerations (including disregard thereof) to give effect to the United Kingdom’s obligations under international law.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to provide for a clearer way of implementing the international law exception in paragraph 6 of Part 2 of the Schedule.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to move the first amendment in this group, Amendment 18 in my name, with the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. It must be read together with Amendment 29, which is also in this group. I shall speak to both of them together. These two amendments deal with the problem arising from the international law exception at paragraph 6 of the schedule.
A number of noble Lords highlighted this problem at Second Reading. In my speech, I referred to the opinion on the Bill by the Richard Hermer KC. I disagree with certain aspects of his opinion, but I agree with his analysis of the effect of paragraph 6 of the schedule. As he put it, a breach by the UK of an unincorporated treaty does not normally give rise to a claim under domestic law, but paragraph 6 of the schedule provides a domestic law foothold for such claims on a virtually unlimited basis. Unless the paragraph is amended or removed, the consequence will be that, contrary to the purposes of the Bill, local authorities, for example, will make their own determinations about UK compliance with international law obligations. If there is a dispute about the correctness of the position they have taken, that dispute will be decided by our courts.
We do not normally implement international law obligations on such an unspecified and broad basis. What we generally do is give effect to specific international law obligations in a manner that is clear, and thus consistent with the rule of law requirement of legal certainty and clarity. There are countless examples of this approach, from the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 to the Human Rights Act. In essence, what happens is that the implementing legislation identifies specific provisions in a treaty that are to be incorporated in domestic law, and sometimes those provisions will be listed in a schedule to the Act. The legislation will then create special rules or mechanisms that Parliament considers are required to give effect to those international law obligations. Examples include the declarations of incompatibility under the HRA and Foreign Office certificates under Section 4 of the Diplomatic Privileges Act.
Paragraph 6 of the schedule to the Bill does not do any of that. It purports to import the entirety of international law—potentially all treaties, whether incorporated or not—in every rule of customary international law, and invites decision-makers to consider for themselves whether their decisions will be compliant with any such international law. It is an inherently uncertain and unclear provision. Moreover, the international law obligations that might be relevant in this field are contested and unsettled.
This is particularly the case for international legal rules on the duties of third parties vis-à-vis a serious breach of peremptory rules of international law—most notably, Article 41 of the International Law Commission’s articles on state responsibility provides for three very general obligations for states faced with a serious breach of international law by another state. Those obligations are non-recognition, non-assistance and co-operation; but whether this rule entirely reflects customary international law and what it specifically requires of a state are not settled.
Public bodies would also have to determine for themselves whether they can avail themselves of the international law exception. That too requires a complex international law analysis. Whether an entity is a public body under domestic law is, of course, a question of domestic law, but whether the conduct of that body is attributable to the state on the international plain is a question of international law. Universities might be an example of public bodies under domestic law—we have been discussing that in previous debates on this Bill—but it is not the case that the conduct of a university would ordinarily be attributable to the state as a matter of international law.
The amendment that we propose would maintain the international law exception but add clarity to it by ensuring that regulations are adopted to include descriptions of considerations, including disregard thereof, to give effect to the UK’s obligations under international law. There may be a better formulation than the one we propose, but in essence the idea is to replicate the manner in which we have given effect to international law obligations that have not yet come into existence: for example, those that may arise in the future under decisions of the Security Council.
An example of this power is in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. It creates the power to make regulations for purposes of compliance with UN obligations and, more generally, for the purpose of compliance with any other international obligation. What happens in practice is that the Foreign Office lawyer, together with the Attorney-General, will consider the specific international law obligations that have arisen and then contribute to the drafting of clear, specific and precise regulations to give effect to those obligations. To be clear, the power that we are proposing will not, of course, replace the power in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act. It would be in addition to that.
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, take the view that that power in paragraph 6 may not be needed and could simply fall away. Our proposal is a compromise that reflects the reality that this is a sensitive area and we thought that embedding in the Act a power to make regulations for purposes of complying with international law may, in this context, be useful. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 28 in this group and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for adding his name. I should first say that I am in complete agreement with the thoughts that lie behind Amendments 18 and 29, to which the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, has spoken so eloquently.
My Amendment 28 is simply a more direct way of dealing with the same problem. It deletes paragraph 6 of the schedule in its entirety, so that public authorities cannot use international law considerations as a means of avoiding the effect of Section 1 of the Bill. Public authorities are not experts in international law but might well seek to use ill-founded concerns about the UK’s adherence to international law as a smokescreen behind which they believe that they can hide their boycott activities. Put simply, it creates a huge loophole in the Bill.
I tried to compare the Bill with last year’s Procurement Act to see whether the exclusions in the schedule to this Bill are the same as the mandatory and discretionary grounds for exclusion in the Procurement Act. This was not easy, because it is clear that two completely different sets of draftsmen have been involved in the two Bills. However, the one thing that I am pretty sure of is that the Procurement Act did not have an international law exclusion ground, so the inclusion of paragraph 6 in the schedule to this Bill is somewhat puzzling.
I shall comment briefly on Amendment 31 in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, because that would extend the range of things that public authorities could look at to breaches of international law outside the UK. Not only is this way beyond the Procurement Act exclusions as well, but it adds yet another loophole, making the loophole as big as it could possibly be in order to allow public authorities to justify boycotts. For that reason, I cannot support it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s rationale for the inclusion of paragraph 6 in the schedule.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 31 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Blower. I have no observations on the amendments that have just been spoken to.
Paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 disapplies the bar in Clause 1 of the Bill on a public entity, for want of a more precise definition, from taking into account political or moral disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct in making procurement or investment decisions in one particular situation. A procurement decision is defined in Clause 2(2) as
“a decision about a contract for the supply of goods, services or works to the decision-maker”.
Paragraph 6 applies where the decision-maker reasonably considers that its political or moral disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct is relevant to whether the procurement or investment decision would place the UK in breach of its international law obligations. I have no problem with that at all.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I support Amendments 18 and 29, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, to which I have added my name. In view of what has been said in detail by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I can be very short.
Put very simply, the international law exception in the Schedule, as currently worded, leaves entirely to the relevant public body the right to reach its own conclusion as to whether a failure to boycott or a positive decision to make a procurement in relation to the foreign state would place the UK in breach of its obligations under international law. This is contrary to the Government’s own policy in paragraph 6 of the Explanatory Notes that the obligations under international law relevant to a BDS decision must be determined by the Government and not by individual relevant bodies. As we all know, many aspects of international law derived from numerous sources can be highly contentious. One has only to think of disagreements expressed in this House over the past few years on the proper meaning and effect of the refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights to see that that is so.
Paragraph 6 of the Explanatory Notes states that decisions of public policy about procurement and investment based on political or moral disapproval of a foreign state are permitted only if the decision is,
“positively consistent with the UK’s foreign policy”—
I emphasise—
“as determined by the Government”.
The Minister, in response to me on Second Reading, was not entirely consistent in relation to this matter. She said:
“This exception is necessary to ensure that public authorities are not forced to make a decision which could put the UK in breach of its obligations under international law. Public authorities cannot have their own subjective views on what constitutes a breach of international law”—
which is fair enough. She continued:
“They must reasonably consider the decision relevant to the UK’s obligations under international law”.—[Official Report, 20/2/24; col. 595.]
Therefore, there is an insertion there of “reasonable consideration” but no reference at all to the Government’s policy stated in the Explanatory Notes that foreign policy is to be determined by the Government and not by individual public entities.
In short, we simply cannot have disputes before our domestic courts about the proper meaning and effect of international law sources relevant to decisions under the Bill going through the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court at great cost to the public as well as, of course, to the ratepayers and the council tax payers of the relevant body.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly support the two amendments, one from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the other from my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I urge my noble friend the Minister to consider carefully the purpose of these amendments.
I completely support the Bill and I am grateful to the Government for bringing it forward, although I recognise that not all noble Lords will be of the same mind as myself. However, I stress that using a test such as that proposed in paragraph 6 of the Schedule, as to whether the decision would place the UK in breach of its obligations under international law, is problematic.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Hendy’s amendment. Not only has he made a very powerful case as a renowned labour rights lawyer, but he has mentioned the question of the Welsh Government’s position, which is something I want to ask noble Lords, and in particular the Minister, to consider. Supposing the Welsh Government faced a decision by the UK Government not to support the steel industry with the support that it needs, we could see the closure of the Port Talbot steelworks, which directly employs just under 3,000 people on wages that are high for the area; indirectly, with the multiplier effect, at least 9,000 workers would lose their jobs, and a whole series of supplier industries would be affected. That would be the equivalent of closing mines in former pit villages, which I experienced as a Member of Parliament in the Neath valley, specifically representing those within the old constituency of Neath for nearly a quarter of a century. Closing the Port Talbot steelworks will be the equivalent of ripping the heart out of that whole area, and, as I have said, the multiplier effect will be devastating. It will be equivalent to closing the mines, particularly in the 1980s and flowing on into the 1990s.
I make that point because, if a steel supplier replacing the collapsed British steel industry was found to have labour standards that were in breach of international law, as my noble friend Lord Hendy has so authoritatively explained, why would—and should—the Welsh Government not have the right to say, “No, we won’t source that steel for infrastructure development”, which the Welsh Government largely have responsibility for in Wales under the devolved powers? Why should they not say, “We won’t do that because of the terrible labour standards, which are out of compliance with international labour law”? Why are they being denied that opportunity? Under this Bill, they will be denied that opportunity, unless the Government are willing to accept my noble friend Lord Hendy’s amendment.
This is a terrible Bill. I am normally on the same side of the argument as my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, but this is a terrible Bill, and I will further explain why in the discussion on the next group of amendments. I ask the Minister to consider where the Bill is taking public bodies such as the Welsh Government—and Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, which might be in the same position. If this Government allow the Port Talbot steelworks to close, with devastating consequences for the area, particularly employees in Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, it might say, “In any future procurement decisions, we will not source steel from this or that country, replacing the Port Talbot steelworks, because of their labour law standards and their failure to comply with international workers’ rights and other matters”.
I cannot understand why the Government are driving the Bill forward without considering detailed amendments like that of my noble friend Lord Hendy. I know that the Minister has not replied yet; perhaps she will surprise us and say, “Yes, I agree with the noble Lord’s amendment”, or, at least, “I will take it away and look at how we might refine it in a fashion that could be acceptable to the Government and which he might be willing to accept”.
I hope the Minister surprises me by doing that but, if she does not, I ask her, the Government and the Conservative Benches to consider where this country is going on such matters. We are not respecting human rights. That is a matter for the next group of amendments, but we are not respecting our international obligations to uphold workers’ rights—conventions, by the way, that we have signed up to as a UK Government. That does not seem a good place to leave this country, and I hope that the Minister, having listened to the speech by my noble friend Lord Hendy, will agree to look at how she might be able to support his amendment, perhaps in a slightly modified form.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my declaration of interests. It is exactly from that position that I wish to ask a fundamental question of my noble friend. We spend an awful lot of time trying to get companies not to be complicit with the Government of Myanmar, for example, because of their actions. We are proud that there is a whole series of decent private and public companies that make decisions on those grounds. Are we sure that we should be in a position in which we will encourage public and private companies to make decisions on those grounds but specifically exclude the right of elected bodies—and some non-elected bodies, because they have been designated as public bodies—to make those decisions? I find that a very difficult position to support.
Part of the problem is that we are now in a complex and extremely uncertain area, which is why all the amendments before us are of considerable importance. They say that we are putting public bodies—we are not quite sure what they are—in a position where they do not know quite how they should behave, and we are opening them up to the opportunity of people taking them to court because the decision they have made has not been in conformity with what the plaintiffs suggest should have been their decision in relation to international law. At the same time, we are saying to them that they should not take into account the same things most of us would try to get private companies—and public companies, in that sense—to take into account.
We are getting into a real mess here, and I do not see that this is a carefully written Bill. Indeed, my last point is simply that this is a terribly badly written Bill. I do not know who thought it through. We have now had a series of people taking rather different views—as a matter of fact, I am unhappy about the particular way in which Israel is treated in the Bill. We are all taking different views, but we are all saying that the Bill is so badly written that people will not know how to deal with it.
This is a central concern for this House; we need legislation through which we can explain to people what is happening. If I may say to the noble Lords who put the amendments forward, it took a bit of listening to understand what their problem was, to put it bluntly. How on earth are we going to have public bodies coming to decisions when they have to read that to start with to understand what mess they might be in? I hope my noble friend will help me to understand how this Bill will be simple enough for it, first, to be enforced and, secondly, to be proper. At the moment, I feel it is improper, because it is so badly drafted.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, we should get this into perspective. I say to my noble friend Lord Deben and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, that this Bill is handling one particular aspect: fundamentally, boycotts and divestment decisions. There is a whole range of law in the Procurement Act, which we passed last year, which sets out the UK’s version of the procurement rules we used to take from the EU—they have been modernised for our own purposes, but they are still hugely complicated.
For a very long time, the Government’s own procurement advice to public bodies was that:
“Public procurement should never be used as a tool to boycott tenders from suppliers based in other countries, except where formal legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions have been put in place by the UK Government”.
In many ways, this Bill provides a more liberal approach to that blanket proposition, which was in a government procurement policy note and which has been governing procurement for a long time. We need to see this Bill in context and in the light of the rather narrow area it is trying to deal with.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hain, I think this is a rather good Bill, although I agree respectfully with him that these amendments, particularly those on international law, merit careful consideration by the Minister and the Government. I say that essentially for three reasons, and I can be brief.
First, the general approach in this country is that public bodies do not have their own interpretation of international law. It is the Government who assess international law obligations, because they are binding on the United Kingdom as a state.
That leads me to the second point, which might in part answer that made by my noble friend Lord Deben. The effect of the Bill as drafted is to introduce, by the back door, potentially vast swathes of international law into our domestic legislation. As I never tire of saying in this House, we have a dualist system: international law is not part of domestic law unless and until it is incorporated. So the answer to my noble friend’s point may well be this: if somebody were to say in a domestic court that a public authority was in breach of “the law” because it had not complied with some international law obligation that was not part of our domestic law, the public body’s obvious retort would be to say that it is not subject to that obligation.
The third point is a practical rather than legal one. My concern is that, in the real world, if the Bill is left as drafted it will in practice drive a coach and horses through what it really seeks to achieve, because the courts will be clogged up with arguments, even if they are entirely unmeritorious, as to the scope of international law. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, about Richard Hermer KC’s opinion: it is something of a curate’s egg, and I will perhaps come back to that in a later group. But I agree that, on this point, he is absolutely right to sound a note of warning and to highlight that the Bill as drafted risks undermining the Government’s ambitions for it.
I gently invite my noble friend the Minister to reconsider the Government’s approach to this international law question, which we can perhaps come back to at a future opportunity.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee because I did not participate in previous days in Committee or at Second Reading, but as these groups touch on the areas that I speak on from these Benches—international trade and international relations—I want to ask the Minister for clarity on a couple of areas.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that these amendments simply highlight the mess that the Government have got themselves into with the Bill as a whole. The Bill imposes some extraordinary obligations on public bodies, which I presume is the reason for paragraph 6 of the Schedule—it is necessary only because of those extraordinary measures.
Most of the amendments in this group do not deal with the fundamental issue that the Bill is incoherent. Amendment 18, in trying to deal with this issue, potentially gives huge powers to Ministers to profoundly shape or change the nature of the Bill by their powers to set out what should be regarded and disregarded in terms of international law obligations. Amendment 28 pretends that the overall issue with the Bill—which is the reason that paragraph 6 of the Schedule exists in the first place—does not exist. Fundamentally, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, this is a very bad Bill. These amendments just underline why.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that I wish the Bill was specific and addressed the manifesto commitment of the Conservative Party. The Labour Party has made it absolutely clear that we are opposed to boycotts, disinvestment and singling out Israel. The problem with the Bill is that it is wide. It covers all kinds of issues that will place public bodies in a very difficult position. In the debate on this group of amendments, we have senior legal people all saying basically the same thing: this will end up in court. When that fear of ending up in court occurs—when people read a law and say, “This is so complicated that we don’t know what it means; it will end up with us in court”—what happens then? It is the chilling effect. There will be decisions made not in the interest of the public body but on the basis of it not being sure that it is capable of making this decision. That is the important thing.
I support my noble friend’s amendment on extending the exceptions. The Schedule lays out other obligations on public bodies, not least very positive legislation that this Government have implemented on modern slavery, on other international law issues, on labour-related misconduct and so on. They are naturally there because these public bodies have already been told that these obligations are on them. There will be a lot of confusion. I agree with my noble friend’s point about taking into account potential breaches of international law by the UK but not those by other countries in the supply chain. Most of our experience of labour issues is that those supply chains can be incredibly convoluted. You do not know the origin of certain products. We have had debates in this Chamber about the use of cotton grown in Xinjiang by slave labour and being sold in British shops. Companies have decided to find out where that goes.
My noble friend also raised the Rana Plaza disaster of 2013. I remember it well, and I am sure that the Minister does, too, because many of our retail companies were selling products made in factories that were incredibly unsafe and used child labour. That disaster will stay in my mind. The government response at the time was, “There are potential breaches of international law. We will give the ILO extra money to go and investigate Bangladesh so that it commits to its proper responsibilities”. We did that.
The Government in this legislation are saying, “There are all sorts of factors that we can’t take into account—and even if we can, there are exceptions, the Secretary of State has to be involved, and we know it’s going to end up in court.” That is the problem with this legislation. It is not straightforward dealing with BDS. I wish it were. We will come on to that in the other group.
I have been trying to work out at what point I should read out the guidance on the Occupied Territories in Palestine that the Government have issued to companies. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, please read it. The noble Baroness is nodding; she has read it. Great. I shall read it into the record, although it may take longer than the 10 minutes I am allowed.
“The UK has a clear position on Israeli settlements: The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights have been occupied by Israel since 1967. Settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties … There are therefore clear risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements, and we do not encourage or offer support to such activity. Financial transactions, investments, purchases, procurements as well as other economic activities (including in services like tourism) in Israeli settlements or benefiting Israeli settlements, entail legal and economic risks stemming from the fact that the Israeli settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied land and are not recognised as a legitimate part of Israel’s territory. This may result in disputed titles to the land, water, mineral or other natural resources which might be the subject of purchase or investment … UK citizens and businesses should be aware of the potential reputational implications of getting involved in economic and financial activities in settlements, as well as possible abuses of the rights of individuals. Those contemplating any economic or financial involvement in settlements should seek appropriate legal advice”.
That is the Government’s advice, recently issued. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, we are saying that there is one policy for the private sector and another for the public sector. That is absolutely crazy. There are so many contradictions in this legislation that it beggars belief. I hope that the Minister will think hard about the complex nature of the Bill, and perhaps give it due consideration. I shall not repeat my comments on the next group, but we have often said, “Let’s sit down together and come to a solution that meets the requirements that were set out in the manifesto”. This legislation does not; that is why it is so wrong.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, I will address the various amendments tabled in relation to international law. If the Committee is content, I will start by addressing Amendment 31, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. It is a wide-ranging amendment, as some have said, which would allow public authorities to choose not to procure a good, service or works if their manufacture, provision or supply may have involved a breach of international law. Where a judgment has been made that a party has breached international law, it is for the Government and not a public authority to determine the appropriate response. This amendment would give public authorities too much discretion to engage in boycotts and divestment campaigns and would undermine the legislation.
Lord Deben (Con)
My noble friend is saying that, if a regime controls by force and in the most terrible way the whole economics of a nation, I can advise a private company not to deal with it and remove itself from it, but a public body could not say, “I will not trade with or buy from Myanmar”, unless the Government decide that they will not deal with Myanmar in that sense. I find that morally extremely difficult to take. We are asking private people to do things—I am sure the Government would support that—but we are going to exclude those who are democratically elected or who are looking after, for example, a university. I find that very difficult to take.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
We are of course dealing with investment and procurement and the public bodies themselves.
Perhaps I should respond to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who mentioned the Occupied Territories, which we will be coming back to on later amendments. Although the Government recognise the risks associated with—
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I am perplexed by her view that foreign policy is simply a matter for central Governments. Foreign policy affects the population of the UK; it affects thousands of institutions in one way or another. We live, after all, in a global world. We do not live in a completely isolated country with no contact with the rest of the world. Foreign policy is not just something that can be determined and administered entirely by central government without the engagement, involvement and acceptance of those policies by a very large number of public and private institutions and individual members of this country.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I note what the noble Baroness says, but the Bill does not change UK foreign policy. That is for FCDO and the UK Government to decide. This applies only to public authorities and to investment and procurement, which I have continued to emphasise, because I think some of the discussion is needlessly wide-ranging—and, if I may, I will now make progress.
The Government, as I was saying, in relation to the Palestinian Occupied Territories, recognise the risk associated with economic and financial activities in the Israeli settlements, but we do not support boycotts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. They are inherently divisive and may lead to inadvertent negative effects on Palestinians, as well as undermining the aim of the Bill, which is to ensure that we speak with one voice internationally. None of this changes existing government guidance.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
This is a fundamental point. I have made clear the Labour Party’s position on boycotts. We are talking about investment in factories in illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories. What is the noble Baroness saying to a public body that realises that an investment it had has suddenly transferred from Jordan to a factory in the Occupied Territories? Is she saying that that public body cannot say that the investment is in breach? It causes reputational risk and could fundamentally affect the value of the investment, because it is illegal. What is the noble Baroness saying: that we are going to put it in this Bill, come what may, because that is the foreign policy? It makes no sense to me at all. The Government are talking with two voices. The FCDO is saying one thing and this Minister is saying something completely different.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I do not think there is a difference between us and the FCDO. If I may, I will move on to the other amendments, because I am trying, as I always do, to answer the questions noble Lords have asked. There are a number of different amendments in this group, and I think we should look at them in the round. I will turn to Amendments 18, 28 and 29.
I will start with Amendment 28, which is a probing amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, which would remove paragraph 6 of the schedule. She said that was a direct approach. I thank her, more generally, for her support for this legislation and for providing this opportunity to explain why this provision was included in the Bill. Paragraph 6 of the schedule makes an exception to the ban for considerations that a decision-maker in a public authority reasonably considers to be relevant to compliance with the UK’s obligations under international law.
Amendments 29 and 18, as the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, has explained, would remove the existing exception and replace it with a narrower exception that would only allow public authorities to consider international law in a way that is influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct, in line with regulations made by the Secretary of State. I would like to thank him, and my noble friend Lady Noakes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for raising this matter. I acknowledge the noble Lord’s and my noble friend’s valuable expertise in this area— of course, they have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is not in his place, my noble friends Lady Altmann and Lord Wolfson.
There are very limited examples of when this clause might be relevant to public authorities, such as when abiding by sanctions under international law. It is therefore intended as a safeguard. I appreciate the noble Lord’s concern that public authorities could make their own subjective interpretations of foreign policy that are not aligned with the foreign policy of the UK Government. This exception can only be exercised by public authorities in a way that is “reasonable”. It would be up to the enforcement authority, or the courts, to determine whether the exception was exercised reasonably.
However, I appreciate noble Lords’ various concerns on this matter, including the impact on the courts, and the Government will consider these. We will no doubt return to the international law issue on Report. I thank noble Lords for their insightful contributions—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Can I press the Minister on that? My understanding is that, under the Bill, in the absence of a Minister or the Government coming to a determination that international law has been breached, a decision-maker in a public authority can make the decision that there is the potential of a breach. Therefore, a decision-making body at the moment, for example—because Ministers are warning the Israeli Government that their actions in the West Bank and Occupied Territories are potentially in breach of international law—would be permitted under Schedule 6 to make a decision not to invest.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am not sure that I entirely understand the noble Lord’s question, but I will reflect on it. We will come relatively shortly to a group that will look at these issues more broadly. If I am able to do so, I will come back to him at that point.
As I have already said, various concerns have been raised, which we will consider. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that we value this House’s expertise, as I said at Question Time only last week. The Government will continue to think carefully about the important points that have been made. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The key driver behind our amendments was a concern about clarity, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, pointed out. International law is not just a law but an entire legal system, so to say that you cannot breach international law is like saying that you cannot breach Chinese law. The legislative instruction has to be more specific than that. That is the essence of our concern.
I do not think the power we are proposing in my amendments, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, would be excessive, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Oates. We have other examples of that in the legislation. As for the Minister’s comment on sanctions, we already have powers in legislation to deal with sanctions, so there would not need to be an international law exception on such a broad and unlimited basis to cover that situation; we already deal with that in our existing legislation.
I thank those who supported our amendments and analysis, in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar. I look forward to the proposals that the Minister said she would consider bringing forward on Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Collins of Highbury
“(4A) Section 1 does not apply to a decision which has been made in accordance with a Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights.(4B) A “Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights”—(a) is a public authority’s policy criteria relating to disinvestment in cases concerning contravention of human rights, and(b) must be applied consistently by the public authority to all foreign countries.(4C) Within 60 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish, and lay before Parliament, guidance on the form, content and application of a Statement for the purposes of this section.(4D) Public authorities must have regard to the guidance referenced in subsection (4C) when devising a Statement for the purposes of this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would exempt public bodies from the prohibition in section 1 where the decision has been made in accordance with a Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights. A Statement may not single out individual nations—the policy would have to be applied consistently, and in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this amendment and speaking to Amendment 48, I stress that we are very happy to sit down with the noble Baroness and her departmental colleagues to see whether there is a way forward to address the fundamental principle of not outlawing BDS but ensuring that decisions are not simply made to single out one particular nation—and that is of course Israel.
There is a way forward. In our view, it is not wrong for public bodies to take ethical investment decisions—we had a lengthy discussion about this in the earlier group —but those decisions must be consistent. We have heard many legitimate criticisms of foreign Governments and many Ministers have expressed concerns. They may not have clear policy, but they have expressed concerns.
In these amendments, which will hopefully have the support of the Government, we are trying to stop people who seek to target Israel alone, hold it to different standards from other countries, question its right to exist and equate the actions of the Israeli Government to Jewish people, in doing so creating hate and hostility against Jewish people in the United Kingdom. We have seen a lot of evidence of that in recent times and it is completely wrong.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 19, to which I have added my name, and I will speak to Amendment 48 in my name. Amendment 48 is focused on a simple question: does the statement of compatibility by the Minister on the face of the Bill comply with the terms of Clause 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, or would the Minister have been wiser to make a statement under the terms of Clause 19(1)(b) of that Act?
Just to remind the Committee, the Minister states on the face of the Bill that its provisions
“are compatible with the Convention rights”.
It is, of course, possible for Parliament to pass legislation that is not compliant with convention provisions. That is indeed provided for in Section 19(1)(b) of the 1998 Act. But if we adopt that course, we have to fess up to the fact that although Ministers are
“unable to make a statement of compatibility the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill”.
I recognise that some members of the Conservative Party would find it a badge of honour to flourish a statement of non-compatibility with the Human Rights Act, but I would not have placed the Minister in that group, so I am curious to find out what is going on.
First, however, I must own up to my personal involvement with and attachment to Section 19 provisions in the 1998 Act, when I was a senior policy adviser to the then Home Secretary. At that time, there was a robust debate about whether, despite the sovereignty of Parliament, legislation could be stopped if it breached ECHR provisions. Quite naturally, parliamentary sovereignty inevitably triumphed, but there was concern in the Labour Government at the time that they wanted proper consideration to be given to the ECHR when Bills came to Parliament. With my good friend the late and much-missed Lord Gareth Williams, a distinguished lawyer, Home Office Minister and later Leader of this House, we came up with the idea of a ministerial statement of ECHR compliance on the face of the Bill. That led to the drafting of what became Section 19 of the 1998 Act. This provision was intended to make Ministers stop and think carefully about human rights convention compliance before they introduced a Bill to Parliament.
It is quite difficult to see that this has happened with this Bill. Clause 4 as drafted is a straightforward gagging provision. It stops people openly discussing a full range of possible actions they might take to express their disapproval of an Israeli Government’s continued breaching of international law in Gaza and the Occupied Territories. This places the Bill in breach of Article 10 of the convention—the right to freedom of expression—and therefore in breach of Section 6 of the 1998 Act.
That is not just my view—it is the clear view of Liberty, Amnesty International and many others, including many parliamentarians. People cannot see how Clause 4 can be squared with Article 10 of the ECHR. Liberty has also argued that the Bill constitutes an interference with the rights of freedom of conscience under Article 9 of the ECHR, a view that I think is shared by Quakers, given their beliefs.
In these circumstances, I am at a loss to see how the Minister can make the statement on the face of the Bill that it is compliant with Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act. When I consulted the clerk about framing an amendment to delete the statement on the face of the Bill, I was told I could not do that. However, they helpfully suggested that I could insert a provision that after the passage of the Bill, there should be a review of its compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 within a given period. That is exactly what Amendment 48 would do, with particular attention paid to compliance with Article 10 of the ECHR, the right to freedom of expression. If that review found that the Act was not compliant, the Government of the day would then have to decide whether they would go forward and implement the Act, in contravention of the 1998 Act.
I return to the question I posed at the beginning of my remarks. If the Minister still believes that she has placed the correct statement of compliance on the face of the Bill, I respectfully ask her to share with the House the source of the legal advice that convinced her it was the right thing to do.
I turn briefly to Amendment 19, to which I have added my name and strongly support. I will not repeat the persuasive arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Collins. This amendment is an important step towards making the Bill more compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998, but I fear that the Minister’s statement on the Bill’s compliance will not pass muster.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, helpfully explained in his opening remarks the extent to which he agrees with the aims of the Bill but not the means chosen. However, his amendment could open a huge back door to councils and devolved authorities doing what they want in relation to BDS activities, because they would only have to dress up what they want to do as a statement of human rights policy. That statement is not even fully defined as regards what is meant by human rights. This could be a massive loophole. At the end of the day, it would still involve public authorities, including the devolved Administrations, in ignoring foreign policy as set by the UK Government. We must not allow ourselves to get away from the fact that that is crucial. We cannot have public authorities setting foreign policy.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I follow on from the noble Baroness’s diktat position whereby central Government decide the policy and nobody else can have a view. That would undermine the position. It was the thrust of the noble Baroness’s earlier speech that the Minister indicated that it is for the UK Government to set foreign policy on boycotts and sanctions, and nobody else can do anything about it. As I pointed out at Second Reading, that would have made illegal the decision by many local authorities, universities and student unions to boycott products from apartheid South Africa, and I quoted a KC’s legal opinion confirming that.
How can the noble Baroness possibly justify her position, given the history of the downfall of apartheid, which is contrary to what she tried to suggest? The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in a very unfortunate speech, tried to suggest that sanctions played no role. No serious student of the history of South Africa agrees with that position. Sanctions certainly played a part. But the boycott decision taken by many local councils, universities and student unions, in particular, among the public bodies covered by the Bill to refuse to source products from South Africa—and indeed, to impose sanctions and boycotts and to support Nelson Mandela’s being freed from 27 years of imprisonment—would have been illegal under the Bill. Why? Because the Government of the day in the 1980s, under Margaret Thatcher, did not support that boycott and sanctions policy. So all those local authorities and churches, including many archbishops, bishops and vicars, supporting those boycott campaigns would have all been acting illegally under the Bill if speaking for public bodies.
I want to speak especially to Amendment 19 and to notify your Lordships’ House that I do not wish to move my Amendment 49, in the sixth group, not least to spare Members hearing a further similar speech from me.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, the analogies in discussion around the Bill are being pushed too far. The Bill is about procurement and investment. When student unions sit in, they are not doing procurement and investment. It is only when student unions start spending their money in contravention of charity law—to which they are subject—that they may be beginning to breach the law.
The Bill is not about curbing freedom of speech—far from it. As far as the South Africa analogy goes, the point of those sanctions was to bring an end to that particular regime. The point about the BDS movement and sanctioning Israel is not just to change the regime; it is calling for the eventual end of the state—as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, knows, because in the past he has called, in print, for the dismantling of Israel.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I have not called for the dismantling of the State of Israel. I was a Middle East Minister for the Government and conducted diplomacy with the Israeli Prime Minister in 2000, trying to repair the damage from the collapse of Camp David. I support the right of Israel to exist, as I support the right of the Palestinians to have their own state. Please do not misrepresent me.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I have it in print, from many years ago, but I am glad that it is no longer the case. I can share it with the noble Lord. The analogy should not be pushed that far.
I also note that a group called Muslim Vote, which has put 18 demands to Sir Keir Starmer, has as the 17th demand the throwing out of the Bill, which I think shows what the group understands the point of the Bill to be: simply that it might stand in the way of whatever its aims are in relation to Gaza.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, part of the concern about the Bill is not its narrow scope but that it is extremely broad in its scope. Indeed, it would have a chill effect on decisions made across the country by decision-makers, fully consistent with their human rights obligations. I therefore support the thrust of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Collins.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggests that it is not possible to define human rights. I think her Front Bench and previous Front Benches, going back a very long time, will disagree with her; the FCDO publishes annual human rights reports. Her disagreement is not necessarily with the Bill but with the Government.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I merely said that it was not defined in Amendment 19.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
It does not need to be defined in Amendment 19 because it would adopt the normal practice of human rights, as defined in the definitions at the front of the Government’s annual report on human rights—which I am sure the noble Baroness reads on an annual basis, as I do.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, indicated, those human rights reports refer to a separate category of countries, the priority countries, and he named them: the A to Z is Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. The thrust of the Bill seems to suggest that, unless the Government, through legislation, put sanctions to limit trade with certain countries, any decision-makers would not be able to make any decisions about investing in that country. That is contrary to current practice with countries from A to Z on the priority list.
For example, other than the sanctions that exist against certain elements of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the Bill would prohibit a decision-maker in the United Kingdom deciding not to invest in a Taliban state-owned enterprise. That is extraordinary. Under this legislation, a decision-maker would be prohibited from making a decision about investing in a mining or a gold company in Zimbabwe, which has had many concerns over human trafficking and other human rights concerns. That is also extraordinary, because unless the Government have put in trade sanctions, the Bill will prohibit any other decision-making.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I very much support what the noble Lord said about Zimbabwe. He will know that there was a lot of corruption in the Marange diamond mines, with Government Ministers taking a rake-off from those diamonds. We should be boycotting diamonds from conflict zones such as that, or where corruption is involved—there are many other examples in Africa. I very much support the noble Lord’s point. The Bill would stop public authorities doing that.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Not only do I agree with him but it goes beyond that. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the point for me. Where bribery or labour-related misconduct are concerned, unless the Schedule relates to those, and there are general human rights concerns stated in the priority countries list, a decision-maker who uses the priority list—or, indeed, those issues that have been campaigned on, such as blood diamonds as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and my noble friend Lord Oates—would be in breach of law. That cannot be right, so I would be grateful if the Minister could put my mind at rest.
Lord Warner (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord; I am trying to be helpful. It seems to me that it is even worse than he is saying. Clause 4(1) means that a democratically elected person could not even publish a statement saying that, had it been lawful, he or she would have done X or Y. It is not just that they cannot do it; they cannot even talk about doing it, even though they have been democratically elected by much of their population to take action in a moral and ethical way.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am most grateful to the noble Lord as that leads on to my next question. It relates to those who are democratic figures in those countries and, indeed, our country.
As regards this country, my reading of this legislation is that, if I, in Parliament, call on the Government to sanction, let us say, a foreign Government’s Minister, or an enterprise or a body operating in another country—as I have done regularly in relation to the Wagner Group, by calling on British enterprises not to trade with those enterprises owned by the Wagner Group —I would be a person under this Bill whom a body would have to disregard. Not only are the Government seeking the nonsense that decision-makers should set aside due diligence on human rights, they are seeking to neuter parliamentarians raising the very concerns that we have raised on a regular basis.
I remind the Minister why this is so important: on 12 occasions, I had called for the proscription of the Wagner Group, and called on any British enterprises to desist from having any relationship with it, before the Government made the decision to proscribe it. Up until the point that the Government made the decision to proscribe the group, which I supported, I was in contravention of this Bill. I was in contravention of it on all the occasions that I called on the Government to do what I asked them to do, which they then did.
The nonsense of this legislation gets serious when it comes to Parliament raising human rights concerns about other countries. One country on the list is the DRC. A country not on the list is Rwanda. I have raised human rights concerns about the March 23 group in the conflict between Rwanda and the DRC. I am prohibited from calling on any British bodies not to trade with a group that is not currently proscribed by the British Government.
I refuse to be neutered in this Chamber, by this Bill, on raising human rights concerns. The Leader of the House is shaking his head from a sedentary position as to how I might be neutered by this Bill. I am sure that he has read the Bill. I am allowing him to intervene on me to explain why I am wrong in my interpretation of this Bill.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am talking about not the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, but the Leader. No, the Leader prefers to shake his head and not to intervene. In his absence, I can think of no better deputy than the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I will answer the noble Lord’s question: he is not a “decision-maker” for the purpose of this Bill.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am not a decision-maker for the purpose of this Bill but, under Clause 1(7)(b) of this Bill, I am considered to be a “person”. A decision- maker making a decision based on what I asked them to do would be prohibited. Now the noble Baroness is shaking her head. Why would I not be considered a “person” under Clause 1(7)(b)?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I am not going to waste the time of the House getting into these nitpicking debates. The noble Lord is not covered by this Bill.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I do not think that it is nitpicking. I would be considered a person when a body was making a decision based on what I called them to do. I know that I am not a decision-maker, nor am I a Minister of the Crown, nor am I an exempted officeholder, but I would be considered a person calling on bodies to act. If bodies choose to act on what I say, they are currently prohibited under this from acting.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The central point the noble Lord is seeking to make is that he will not be neutered. He would not be neutered because this Bill does not prevent any person seeking to influence a decision-maker. What it will do is prevent the decision-maker acting on those considerations if they are contrary to the Bill. The noble Lord can say what he likes here, in the street or anywhere else. This is a totally futile point.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful that Hansard will record the contradictory nature of the noble Lord’s intervention on me, when it comes to the nonsensical nature of the point of seeking to influence groups. Let me turn to why—
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am hesitant to interrupt an interruption, but I will. One of the issues we have discussed—it is about Clause 4 as well—is what hat somebody is wearing. For example, a leader of a council might go to a political conference and argue a particular policy. He is a decision-maker but is not performing a decision-making function. The people who might hear his speech at that political conference might think, “He is our leader; he will influence us”, so there is an impact on people being able to advocate particular policies. Is that not true?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I think it is. Other noble Lords may think not. I am looking forward to the Minister’s response to make sure that this is clear.
I wish to move the Committee on to a specific question about British International Investment. That is a body which receives its funding from government—from the taxpayer—but it is charged with making investment decisions in emerging economies. It operates under its ethical investment policy. It has a toolkit and operates under its own set of compliance rules when it comes to how it defines human rights. It takes international obligations under its co-ordination. That policy is not set by Ministers and is not determined by the Government. It makes its own, independent decisions on which countries it invests in.
British International Investment could choose, under its toolkit, not to invest in any of the human rights priority countries. My reading of this Bill is that this will be prohibited. Unless the Government specifically state that BII should not make investment decisions, BII would be in the scope of this Bill. That would be another very retrograde step for the UK with a development institution such as BII leading the charge on international human rights determinations for investments. I would be grateful if the Minister could state that BII is specifically exempt from this Bill.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I was not at Second Reading because, as some of you know, I have been away for six months for reasons I will not explain.
The argument goes on from side to side, but the simple answer for me lies not just in the Bill but in the Explanatory Notes on economic activities of public bodies overseas. In the background to this legislation, we are told by those who prepared it that, if people argue that there should be no investment in Uganda—let me just give that as an example, as it is the country I come from—because of a number of human rights questions, the public body should not agree to that if the Government’s policy is different.
I find the Explanatory Notes absolutely disturbing for any democratic body. Many noble Lords know that I led a campaign against Robert Mugabe’s regime. In fact, I cut up my dog collar and never wore it for nine years and nine months. Some people would have said, “You are an archbishop of the Church of England, so you are part of a public body. The Government have not stated that you could do such and such a thing; therefore you will be in breach”. I find this sentence disturbing. There may be those who want, for example, to say that we must disinvest from a particular body, country or place because it is breaching part of our understanding and that sanctions should be brought, but paragraph 6 states:
“The Government has set out its view that it is not appropriate for public bodies to accede to such campaigns except where to do so is positively consistent with the UK’s foreign policy as determined by the Government. The Conservative Party manifesto for the 2019 Election included a commitment to ‘ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries.’ This Bill is intended to fulfil that commitment”.
Friends, in a free democracy, should we rule out public bodies that may feel, for example, that they should not invest such an amount of money and have our people working with a Government who are oppressing their people from doing so unless it is consistent with government policy? Sometimes opposition to certain things tells us who we are. I trust, I think because of our parliamentary democracy, that things will be challenged in both Houses but, for heaven’s sake, why impose such a thing on a public body? Are we simply saying that the Government cannot err, cannot turn a blind eye, cannot behave in a way that their citizens may find quite difficult? Some of us campaigned against the South African apartheid Government. At that time, there was a particular sort of Government who did not agree with sanctions. I remember arriving in Cambridge. We wanted to boycott green apples from South Africa. There was no way of doing this, but some of us decided to go to Sainsbury’s and announce as loudly as we could, “We are not buying these green apples from South Africa”. Do you know what happened? We never saw those green apples any more in Sainsbury’s. That is democracy. You cannot ban a public body from engaging in an activity which those who belong to it may feel very strongly about.
The Bill is trying to do something, but it is the way it is drafted. The explanation given has a chilling effect on a lot of us, because it suggests that the Government, of whatever shape, will always get it right, that, somehow, they have become omnicompetent and omniscient, and that there are no areas where because of political pressure they will not do it. I know where the Bill is trying to go, but it needs far greater revision if we are going to protect the rule of law in this country and not suggest that the Government always get it right. Some of our foreign policies have not been good. Somehow, we have spoken. Noble Lords have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said about some people from Africa. I find it disturbing that they would think that Ukraine should not be supported because all of them—and I am being honest—are getting a lot of money from Russia and are being supported by China, so any criticism of China and Russia, as far as the African continent is concerned, is very bad, but they will find it very easy to say, “What about Gaza? Why aren’t you doing so much about it?”.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will make three short points, the first following on from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. I made the point at Second Reading: I find it really disturbing that the Minister said we must speak “with one voice internationally”. For me, that is not democracy; it smacks of totalitarianism. There is a multitude of voices in a democracy, not a single one.
Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, finished her speech with reference to a Muslim group that called for the Bill to be thrown out, and she seemed to imply that that meant it was against the State of Israel. There are myriad groups that want the Bill thrown out. Many of us made the same point at Second Reading: we do not think this is a proper Bill, but we are working with it, and what one thinks of it says nothing about one’s attitude to Israel. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, called it “improper” because it is so badly drafted.
Thirdly, and going to the substance of the amendments that we are discussing, my noble friend, in effect, held out an olive branch to the Government by taking the Bill at face value. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said about the statements of compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights, but let us take that at its face value. If the Government genuinely believe that the Bill is compatible with the ECHR, why should they oppose what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and my noble friend put forward in their amendments? They would strengthen and give substance to the declarations about human rights.
I hope that when the Minister comes to respond to my noble friend, she will take his amendment in the spirit that he put it to her and be willing to discuss whether it is a way forward. Although many of us dislike the Bill completely, we could at least work on the basis of that amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is not my usual role, but I shall be a bit more conciliatory than other speakers. Although I see the Bill as very heavy-handed, almost draconian, and it should never have been brought to your Lordships’ House, at least we have an option now. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, pointed out, the House can work together. The Minister herself said that she values this House’s expertise. We have not noticed that over the past few years, because virtually everything we suggest gets thrown out. Amendments 19 and 48 would make the Bill less heavy-handed and would mean that public authorities could make decisions of their own when they saw illegitimate human rights abuses. I do not see why anyone would want to reject that idea.
I say to the Government: bring your own amendments if you want to, but, in essence, repeat what we are trying to say here and, perhaps, make this Bill less awful.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will come back to the text of the proposed amendment. I hope it is in order if I use my short intervention essentially to ask the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, a series of questions. Obviously, he need not reply now, but I just wish to understand how this amendment is meant to work. I will leave the broader points to one side for the moment, although I always want to ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, with whom I often disagree, remains proudly unneutered in everything he wants to say, here and elsewhere.
As I understand Amendment 19 and the proposed clause, it seeks to enable a public authority to publish policy criteria. Those policy criteria, as we see in proposed new subsection (4B), relate to
“disinvestment in cases concerning contravention of human rights”.
The public authority’s criteria have to do two things. First, as the noble Lord said, they “must be applied consistently” to all countries and, secondly, they must be consistent with the guidance published by the Secretary of State, although we are not helped at all as to what that guidance would, might or should be. So let us assume—
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Can I interrupt the noble Lord? I was going to do it at the end, but it might help the Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said that this would create loopholes, and the important point I wanted to make is that there is nothing wrong with public bodies taking ethical investment and procurement decisions. The reason there is nothing wrong in that is that the Government advocate it. As my noble friend Lord Hain said, we have the Government’s current national action plan on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights —and by the way, the Minister says in the introduction that the Government firmly believe that
“the promotion of business, and the respect for human rights, go hand in hand”.
So we are being consistent here, in this amendment, with current government policy.
My noble friend read it out; I will quickly repeat that, in current guidance, the recommendation of the Government is to
“continue to ensure that UK Government procurement rules allow for human rights-related matters to be reflected in the procurement of public goods, works and services, taking into account the 2014 EU Public Procurement Directives”—
the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, mentioned this—
“and Crown Commercial Service guidance on compliance with wider international obligations when letting public contracts”.
So I am not reinventing something; it is there. We have good policy; let us make sure it is reflected in this legislation.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for setting that out so clearly. It brings me to the question I hope he might be able to pick up later, so that I can really understand how this works. We have a public authority, which publishes a set of policy criteria relating to disinvestment in cases concerning contravention of human rights. As he has just set out—and certainly implied by what he just said—it would not be required, for example, to adopt the ECHR in full; it could highlight certain things.
What would happen if a local or public authority decided to say, “We are not going to disinvest or have a policy of disinvesting from countries which do not, for example, allow gay marriage; we will not have a policy of disinvesting from countries that discriminate against women, but we will have a policy, which we will apply consistently throughout the world, of disinvesting from countries that are in control of occupied or disputed territory”? Under the noble Lord’s approach, would that be permitted?
Lord Shipley (LD)
Will the noble Lord give way for a moment? This discussion is extremely important, because I do not interpret Amendment 19 as the noble Lord is interpreting it. He says that there could be a statement, and it would have to be applied consistently to all countries. But the amendment also says that it must be in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State. The noble Lord has not mentioned the fact that guidance to underpin what a local authority was doing would be in place.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
Forgive me, but I think I did mention the guidance right at the beginning of my remarks. Indeed, I made the point that I did not understand that the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, had identified what that guidance would, should or might contain—so I think we are on the same page.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Sorry to interrupt, but I thought I did, at the beginning, when I moved the amendment. Sadly, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, did not refer to my opening remarks when I moved it. I made it absolutely clear that there is a difference between a public body having an ethical investment and procurement policy and an organisation which, as some individuals are trying to do, seeks to target Israel alone, and have standards for Israel that are completely different from those for other countries. I made that absolutely clear.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
To be absolutely clear, my question, which I hope the noble Lord will pick up when he responds, is this. My putative public authority has a consistent policy, which it applies consistently to all countries around the world, of not disinvesting merely because a foreign country does not allow gay marriage, or treats women in a discriminatory fashion, but of disinvesting when a foreign country is in control of occupied or disputed territory. Would that be permitted, or not permitted, under the noble Lord’s amendment? I look forward to his answer in due course.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there are a couple of observations, one of which has been rather lost in the debate. The first one has not. I merely make the observation that I am increasingly concerned by the concept that the implementation of legislation could be at the discretion of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—whether it is run by Robin Cook, or the noble Lord, Lord Hain, or the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, or Ernie Bevin.
There are different flavours of Foreign Office, but my observation of the Foreign Office over the years is that it often manages to face two ways at the same time. Indeed, it might well regard that as a key part of the art of diplomacy. One can therefore read into Foreign Office policy almost anything one wants to do at any one time. The Foreign Office often makes quite a virtue of presenting a particular side to one group of people and another side to another group of people. However great those running the Foreign Office of the day might be, they are liable to change in the future. So I question whether that, as a basis for legislation, is sensible.
The key point I want to make is one that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, as I understood him, at the beginning. Governments come and go. There will be a general election. Who knows who will be in power after that? There will be another one after that, in however many years—perhaps five years. Who knows —and who knows who that Government will be? There will be different flavours of government—but legislation, unless it is altered by Parliament, will remain.
The question of double standards in foreign policy is a fundamental part of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism—a definition that was adopted first by the United Kingdom, in 2017, before any other country, but which has now been adopted by many countries. Pertinent to this debate is the fact that it has been adopted by virtually every political party represented at Westminster, including the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats.
Within it, the concept of double standards against the State of Israel, judging the State of Israel in ways in which one would not judge any other state, is rather fundamental. It is there, I guess, particularly because of what people have said, for example, in the United Nations. I am not talking about the legitimacy or otherwise of any specific United Nations vote or decision, but what one can objectively demonstrate is that there has been a huge number of decisions relating to the State of Israel, far outweighing, usually, every other country in the world put together. That, I think, could rationally be argued as therefore being a double standard in approach—of unduly concentrating on one member state of the United Nations and not being equal handed. The IHRA definition is quite specific that that should not happen, which is not the same as to say that one should not be vehemently critical, if one chooses to be, of the State of Israel, its Government or its policies. Many people are, including many people in the Israeli Knesset. It does not state that that is in any way illegitimate or anti-Semitic, but it does say that double standards should not apply.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, as we speak, the double standards are in operation on many campuses in this country, where there are sit-ins in relation to one country but not, for example, in relation to Russia. As a footnote, I would like to substantiate, in case there is any doubt, what I said earlier in relation to the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, to Israel. In his article in the Guardian in 1976, when he was a young man, he says it twice. It concludes:
“The present Zionist state is by definition racist and will have to be dismantled”.
I just clarify that that was his article in the Guardian.
Lord Hain (Lab)
Since this has been raised—and I am not sure who I am intervening on—that was a long time ago. I do not withdraw the fact that there are many features of the State of Israel of which I am critical, not least in its dual citizenship law, where certain citizens are regarded as full citizens and others are not. That is a racist thing to be practising—but the noble Baroness suggested that I was questioning the right of Israel to exist. I have not done that, and I do not believe that, and she should not suggest it.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, to bring us back to Amendment 19, I thought it was a probing amendment—but it seems that perhaps it is a serious one, given the endorsements of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others, so let us think about it. I am querying it only because, if it comes back, it might allow the noble Lord, Lord Collins, to refine and consider it further.
I would add to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. For example, let us assume that there is an egregious gay rights violation in some country, and a local council gets very agitated about it, responds to pressure and announces that it will no longer do business with, or procure works or services from, this country, because it abuses gay rights. Under this amendment, it would then have to apply that to every country that does not fully respect gay rights, so if it wanted to buy product from the Middle East then the only place it could go to would be Israel.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, this has been an extremely helpful debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Mann, identified, there is a conundrum in the Bill. The Minister may wish to reflect on the discussion that has taken place. She said after the first group that she valued the expertise of this House and would go away and think about how the Government would respond. I took that to mean that they may make changes on Report, which is theoretically likely to come in about three weeks’ time, but may take longer.
I have concluded, having listened to so many opinions—I am not a signatory to Amendments 19 or 48, though I have huge sympathy with them—from my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others, that it would be useful if the Minister would consider trying to bring all those opinions together into one place to talk further. That is the only way in which progress on this Bill will be made.
I think that I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, say that you cannot have local authorities setting foreign policy. I do not think local authorities want to do so, are doing so or have any ambition to do so. However, they are concerned about human rights and doing the right thing in their procurement and investment policies. Nevertheless, the issue must be discussed.
I took Amendment 19 to mean simply that a statement of policy relating to human rights would need to be considered by those seeking procurement or making investments, and that the statement may not single out individual nations and would therefore have to be applied consistently, as has been confirmed. However, it would have to be in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State. I find the concerns we have been hearing against Amendment 19 unfounded. The only solution I can see to this is that the offer made at the outset by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, should be taken up by the Minister. It would be really helpful if that could happen, because otherwise the passage of the Bill on Report will get more and more difficult.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I invite the noble Lord to look at proposed new subsection (4D) because, with the greatest of respect, it is not correct to say that the policy would have to be “in accordance with” the Secretary of State’s guidance. The amendment says only that they must “have regard to” the Secretary of State’s guidance. This is not nitpicking; there is a really important distinction in law between having to follow guidance and merely having to have regard to it. That is one of the reasons why I was asking the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, those questions.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I understand the noble Lord’s point. I am quoting from the Member’s explanatory statement which is part of Amendment 19 in the Third Marshalled List of Amendments.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint your Lordships’ Committee after so many questions asked of my noble friend the Minister. But I am the Minister representing His Majesty’s Government on this group of amendments. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and my noble friends Lord Wolfson and Lord Leigh for refocusing the House on these two amendments. I will answer as many of the broader questions as I have time for after addressing these myself.
Let me begin with Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a review of the Bill’s compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998, and in particular Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within six months of Royal Assent. As my noble friend the Minister has set out, the Bill will apply to public authorities as defined in Section 6 of the Human Rights Act. In the exercise of their public functions these bodies do not have their own rights under the Human Rights Act or the ECHR, including under Article 10. The Bill does not apply to individuals and their private functions; therefore, it will not infringe on any individual’s rights under the ECHR.
As for the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about compatibility, the Government remain strongly committed to the UK’s long and proud tradition of free speech and to the ECHR’s Article 10 right to freedom of expression. The Minister has signed a statement of the Bill’s compatibility with ECHR rights. On sharing legal advice, His Majesty’s Government do not share legal advice, but we do act on it.
Nothing in the Bill goes against the European Convention on Human Rights. The ban will apply only to bodies that are public authorities under the Human Rights Act 1998—
Lord Warner (CB)
With due respect to the Minister— I am sorry to interrupt when he is keeping to his script—the point I was making was that the certificate that the Secretary of State or Minister signs on the face of the Bill does not just cover the actions of public bodies, it covers all aspects of that particular piece of legislation. I am arguing that there are parts of that legislation that make it impossible to sign with good heart that compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights—and, indeed, the Human Rights Act 1988. It is not just the issues around public bodies, it is about the totality of that piece of legislation being compliant. I gave some examples where it was not compliant. I am very happy to meet the Minister to give him another half a dozen in which it is not compliant. I was asking which legal Minister signed off this as compliant with the Human Rights Act.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My noble friend the Minister has signed the statement of the Bill’s compatibility and is comfortable with that. If the noble Lord, Lord Warner, would like to share his specific concerns further to this, I would be happy to look at them.
The Government remain strongly committed to the UK’s long and proud tradition of free speech and to the ECHR. My noble friend the Minister, on bringing this legislation to the House, confirmed that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the convention rights.
Let me now turn to Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury. His Majesty’s Government appreciate the offer of co-operation and a meeting. We would certainly take him up on that very generous offer to hear out his concerns further. Amendment 19 would exempt decisions from the ban that have been made in accordance with a statement of policy relating to human rights produced by a public authority. The Secretary of State would be required to produce guidance on the content of such statements to which public authorities would be required to have regard—a significant word, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Wolfson.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Why is British International Investment singled out as a body which is able to operate its own independent human rights impact assessment for where it chooses to invest, while other decision-makers cannot?
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I will need to write to him on the specific case of BII, as I do not have the details to hand.
In answer to one of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, the Bill is fulfilling a manifesto commitment to prevent BDS influencing public authorities in undermining community cohesion, which is why Israel is named in the Bill and why there are currently, as I believe, no exemptions. As I think the noble Lord is aware, we are intending to add exemptions under statutory instrument following the passing of the Bill.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
We are going to address the issue in the next group, so I am reluctant to make this point, but it is not just Israel that is listed in the Bill.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I apologise for my error and take the noble Lord’s correction. I have tried to focus my comments on the amendments and the arguments put forward today. I am conscious that there have been a lot of very important points made and a lot of questions asked. I have tried to answer the ones that I can, and I will write to noble Lords where I have not picked them up.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
This has been an incredibly useful discussion and debate, but this is not a probing amendment. It is an attempt to bring two sides of the House together. I made it very clear in my opening remarks that we oppose the BDS campaigns we have seen. I do not accept them. They are very damaging. I think I made the point that they have sought to target Israel alone, hold it to different standards, question its right to exist—which is wrong—and equate the actions of the Israeli Government with Jewish people, in doing so creating the very hate that my noble friend raised.
To be honest, I feel as if I am in a Catch-22 situation. On the one hand, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, says that there are loopholes, but this is not a restrictive, confined piece of legislation, dealing with BDS campaigns specifically. It has much wider implications. Everyone keeps talking about public bodies making foreign policy. No one questions the right of the Government to make foreign policy. The Government’s duty is to speak for the whole country on foreign policy —no one doubts that—but the Government have placed a duty on public bodies to have ethical human rights considerations in their investment and procurement policies.
We will come on to it in other groups, and I know we keep raising these things, but the sad thing is that the Bill damages our foreign policy. It will implicate us in undermining the very resolutions that we have tabled and supported at the United Nations. That is why we are so concerned, and that is why this amendment, far from giving public bodies the responsibility to decide on foreign policy, agrees with this Government when they speak about—I will quote again, because I think it is really important—
“belief that the promotion of business, and the respect for human rights, go hand in hand”.
When it comes to the statement that a Secretary of State may produce as guidance, is it that public bodies “will have” or “must have” regard to it? I have had many debates on previous legislation about what that might mean, particularly over codes of practice, as the noble Baroness knows, so I am happy to enter into legal dialogue about what that means. It is not unusual to require public bodies to follow that sort of guidance, and we can come up with words for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, asked questions about the Occupied Territories. We have an existing policy on the Occupied Territories, so if a public body says it will not invest in the Occupied Territories, that is in accordance with the guidance issued by this Government. If it says it is going to ban any investment in Israel, that would be in breach of the code or whatever guidance, because we are against singling out Israel.
Somebody mentioned gay rights. I have been a campaigner for global gay rights for many years, and one of the things I have resisted doing is advocating blanket boycotts because I know that, where we have investment and contacts, the leverage, guidance and engagement we can have can make a big difference. We have changed people’s attitudes through that. The problem with blanket boycotts is that they have the complete opposite effect.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for, I think, giving an answer to my question. My understanding, therefore, is that the answer to my question is yes. The public authority could make the distinction that I identified. In other words, under this amendment a public authority could refuse to trade with Israel on human rights grounds but could none the less trade with Saudi Arabia. That would, as I understand it, be the consequence of the argument. Have I understood correctly?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
No, the noble Lord is not right. That is not what I said. We have guidance about specific investment in the Occupied Territories. That is what the Government issue now. Why is that so confusing?
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
What, then, is the effect of proposed new subsection 4B(b) if not a blanket ban?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
We currently have guidance on human rights and investment decisions. On other groups of amendments we will discuss the whole question of environmental, social and governance issues. When a public body is taking into account investment decisions, as a private company would, it takes into account those sorts of policies. We will come on to pension schemes in a later group. The problem we have at the moment is that this debate is on BDS but we are actually talking about ethical investment policies. No one is concerned about those issues when we have general debates about procurement and ethical policy. This comes down to specific targeting campaigns that are not to do with human rights.
I strongly defend the right of Israel to exist. I strongly defend the right of Israel to defend itself. Those two things go together. If a campaign of BDS is saying that Israel occupied territories in 1948—many of these campaigns talk not about 1973 but about 1948—I do not agree with that. Israel exists and has a mandate to exist. We must respect that, and I strongly believe in it. But when we come to human rights and investment policy decisions, the Government are more than capable of giving guidance on that, because they do so at the moment through the UN guiding principles, the Modern Slavery Act and all the other things that we have done. The Procurement Act even has paragraphs in it as well. So it is not impossible to have the sort of guidance that we are advocating in this amendment.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I simply say that the noble Lord has criticised the wording and language of the Bill quite specifically. If this amendment is to be presented at a later stage, proposed new subsection 4B(b) does not work because it is a blanket ban.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am more than happy to discuss the wording of this amendment and this proposal. We are not advocating blanket bans. There must be a reason for a ban. The FCDO issues a list of countries that have human rights issues—some, such as North Korea, have very clear issues—but they are not all countries where you would ban engagement or investment, or say, “That’s the end of the road”. An ethical investment policy needs to look at a range of issues—basically, the ESG issues that we will come on to in later groups. I do not want to go through them now.
Lord Warner
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, despite the last debate, this amendment brings us to the heart of what I regard as a misguided Bill: Clause 3(7), which effectively provides the State of Israel with a considerable, unique protection, almost in perpetuity and certainly until new legislation is passed to overturn it. I will make three main points to justify the changes to this provision.
First, the primary justification for this extraordinary legislation is that boycotts, disinvestments and other such campaigns not only undermine UK foreign policy but lead to
“appalling antisemitic rhetoric and abuse”,
in the words of the departmental press notice launching this Bill. Yet, many groups in the Jewish diaspora have said that the Bill will not combat anti-Semitism. The Government’s claim that it will has been convincingly challenged by evidence produced for parliamentarians by the organisation Jews for Justice for Palestinians. Its evidence demonstrates that the rise in anti-Semitic incidents is
“correlated closely with spikes of violence in Israel and Palestine, particularly with the major Israeli army attacks on Palestinian areas, not with boycott and divestment advocacy”.
It was that formidable campaigner against anti-Semitism, Dame Margaret Hodge, who said in the Commons that this legislation would increase anti-Semitism.
Secondly, alongside drafting a Bill that is more likely to increase anti-Semitism than reduce it, the Government seem to have used wording in Clause 3(7) that is at odds with the UK’s stated foreign policy, because it includes “the Occupied Palestinian Territories” and “the Occupied Golan Heights” in the protection given to Israel. By treating these two areas as part of Israel, the passage of the Bill would seem to mean that the UK is legitimising Israel permanently retaining two large swathes of territory obtained by acts of war. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who is unfortunately not in his place, Amnesty International, and others have pointed out, this would mean that the Bill will violate UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which the UK voted for. The resolution declares Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, including east Jerusalem, as legally invalid and a clear violation of international law.
Thirdly, the Government’s claim for this legislation is that it makes it clear internationally that it is the Government who determine UK foreign policy, not protestors or other levels of government. Most people in this country and overseas would assume, then, that when the Foreign Secretary utters on policy towards Israel he speaks for the Government—therefore, they can rely on him to set out the current policy. With this in mind, I draw the Committee’s attention to a piece in the Times on 22 March with the headline:
“Gaza aid held up by arbitrary Israeli denials, says Cameron”.
In that piece, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is quoted as telling the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee that it was,
“‘an enormous frustration’ that aid had been ‘routinely held up waiting for Israeli permissions’”.
To make sure that his views were fully understood, the noble Lord seems to have gone on to say that:
“Israel’s ‘arbitrary denials’ of aid being sent to Gaza is now the ‘main blocker’ to providing humanitarian assistance”.
All this on top of suggesting, in February, that the UK could unilaterally recognise a Palestinian state in the aftermath of a ceasefire.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has accompanied his words with deeds, by imposing sanctions on extremist settlers in the Israeli-occupied West Bank who have violently attacked Palestinians. He went on to say:
“This behaviour is illegal and unacceptable … Too often, we see commitments made”—
by Israel—
“and undertakings given, but not followed through”.
I found the noble Lord’s views refreshingly frank, and rather similar to my own. However, I also found it difficult to reconcile them with the wording and timing of the Bill.
We are now in a rather bizarre situation. On the one hand, we have Michael Gove bringing forward a Bill to give unprecedented protection to the Israeli Government —I could, if I were unkind, say that Clause 3(7) could have been drafted by Mr Netanyahu and Likud. On the other hand, there is the Foreign Secretary laying into the same Government for blocking humanitarian aid to a territory in which thousands of women and children have been killed or displaced, and are starving, as a result of Israeli military action.
Any responsible public body decision-maker or international observer would be entitled to be confused about what the UK Government’s policy is toward the current Israeli Government. Should people heed Mr Gove’s Bill or the words and actions of the Foreign Secretary, who has actually seen what is going on in Israel and the occupied territories? What would the Minister’s advice be to any confused citizen? Perhaps she and her colleagues might want to further consider accepting my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in his Amendment 20, which, as he set out, would delete Clause 3(7) of the Bill. I do so because what is already a very bad Bill is made worse by this subsection. First, it singles out Israel as the only country which cannot be exempted from the provisions of the Bill, even should a future Government decide that such an exemption should be made. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, has set out why that is potentially problematic in relation to the IHRA anti-Semitism definition. Moreover, Ministers have frequently argued that legislation should not single out individual countries but rather should apply common principles. Clause 3(7) goes completely against that approach and, in doing so, sets a dangerous precedent. Like the noble Lord, Lord Warner, I seriously doubt that it will do anything to tackle anti-Semitism; in fact, it is most likely to be counterproductive.
Secondly, as we have heard, Clause 3(7) conflates Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, contradicting long-standing British-government policy and violating UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which was co-authored by the UK, voted for by the UK, and requires member states to distinguish between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. As far as I can see—and we have heard a lot about local government and other public bodies not setting foreign policy—the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is promoting legislation that directly contradicts UK Government policy and the UK-authored Security Council resolution as part of a Bill whose declared objective is to prevent public bodies contradicting government policy.
This contradiction of settled UK foreign policy has serious ramifications which Ministers are trying to avoid by pretending that the Bill is compliant with Resolution 2334. At Second Reading in the other place and in response to Dr Philippa Whitford, who asked why the Bill did not distinguish between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories as required by the resolution, Michael Gove stated that
“they are separated in the Bill. I am afraid the hon. Lady is wrong”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/23; col. 592.]
His claim is apparently that the separation of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories between paragraphs (a) and line (b) of subsection (7) satisfies the requirements of Resolution 2334, but of course that is nonsense. The resolution does not call for the semantic separation of the State of Israel and the Palestinian territories; rather, it
“Calls upon all States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967”.
It is absolutely clear that the “relevant dealings” of the Bill explicitly do not distinguish between the two, because subsection (7) applies equally to them. I hope the Minister will address this issue, because she seemed herself to stray towards this sort of Govian sophistry at Second Reading in this House.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment introduced by my noble friend Lord Warner. It is conceivable that the Government’s objective of exempting the State of Israel—I say that carefully, the State of Israel—from the imposition of BDS, which I do not support, could be achieved with different drafting. However, to have introduced it in the way that it is introduced in Clause 3(7) is a mistake, and the mistake is compounded by mixing up completely different things: the State of Israel and the Occupied Territories, which certainly include the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. They should not be treated in the same way. They are not part of the State of Israel in the view of the British Government, though they are in the view of the present Israeli Government. I repeat, they are not in the view of the British Government part of the State of Israel. Within those Occupied Territories—Golan, east Jerusalem and the West Bank—there are internationally illegal settlements. Illegality is another category on which the British Government’s policy is quite clear—just read the Security Council resolution, which has been quoted. Mixing these things up together is, frankly, a solution of disaster. It will just doom this legislation by including it.
I am not trying to suggest that it would not be possible to do something, though I doubt very much whether specifically mentioning Israel is a wise thing in the first place. I agree with the Government that public bodies should not be making foreign policy, but I am not sure that specifying one country out of 194 where they particularly should not be making foreign policy is a very clever way of setting about that. If you took that away and tried to sort out these unhelpfully mixed-up elements, there might be a better chance of this Bill making progress. So long as they are all mixed up together, we will have a cat’s cradle of contradictions.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said that this Bill will increase anti-Semitism. That is one view. I prefer to observe what is actually happening. We only have to look at what is happening in universities at the moment; we will come on to universities in a later group.
If we look at what has been happening with the encampments that have been springing up in the UK following what has been happening in the US, they are vocally calling for boycott and divestment in relation to Israel—and, indeed, quite a lot worse. This is a very live issue. It is causing much harm on campuses for Jewish students, who are clear that there has been a significant increase in anti-Semitism since this has started. This is not theory; it is actually happening.
Israel is always the focal point for BDS campaigns. The BDS movement itself came into being to attack Israel. I am glad that we are aligned with the noble Lord, Lord Collins, on the need to protect Israel from those activities. From my perspective, if the Bill does nothing else, it should try to protect Israel from boycott and divestment activities. That is why we need Clause 3(7): it underlines the importance of Israel and the particular attacks on Israel.
I accept that the Occupied Territories raise much more difficult issues. In line with the international community, the UK recognises the settlements as illegal, but the practicalities are that this will not be settled conclusively until there is a two-state solution. This is something that cannot be imposed; it will have to be agreed, but that is unlikely to happen very soon. Anyone who has been to Israel or has been in touch with people in Israel will know that the attacks by Hamas on 7 October have left a traumatised Israeli people, for whom the possibility of discussing a two-state solution seems almost unthinkable at this point in time. That is not to deny that that is the right solution in the long term but simply to say that it does not appear to be an immediate, practical problem.
The reality on the ground is that, in the meantime, the unsatisfactory nature of the Occupied Territories is likely to continue. Even if we thought that boycotts and divestments in relation to the Occupied Territories would punish Israel, this ignores the simple fact that there is economic activity in those settlements. Anything that harms that will almost certainly harm Palestinians as much as it harms the people of Israel. We only have to look at what happened when SodaStream, an Israeli company, was forced to withdraw from its activities in the occupied West Bank. The people who really lost out were the Palestinians who lost good, well-paid jobs when that facility had to close.
On our last day in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, pointed me to the FCDO guidance, which I duly went and read; he has read much of it into the record today. The important thing about that guidance is that, although it highlights the risks involved, it does not prohibit anyone in the UK from investing or dealing with those who are active in the Occupied Territories. I believe that this Bill reflects that pragmatic position—that the Occupied Territories are a fact of life—and that, until there is a two-state solution, trying to eliminate it from the Bill does not reflect the practical politics we are facing.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I did indeed read it into the record. Although it did not prohibit investment, it was saying, “Don’t do it. The risks are great. Be aware of those risks and seek legal opinion on them”. We are now debating a Bill that will say that you cannot make a decision based on the advice that the Government have issued.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
The noble Lord is right that the FCDO highlighted the risks and said that businesses involved should seek their own legal advice but it absolutely did not say, “and you mustn’t do it”. It is a fact of life that there will be economic activity in the Occupied Territories and that that may or may not involve businesses from Britain.
The only point I am trying to make is that the Occupied Territories are a fact of life at the moment; there is no easy solution and it is probably not a near-term solution. At the point when it is settled via a two-state solution, they will cease to be Occupied Territories, so that bit of the Bill will cease to have any relevance—but, for the moment, it has relevance. The other point I am trying to make is that anything that deliberately harms that is just as likely to harm Palestinians as it is Israeli citizens.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I am puzzled by the speech that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has just made. First of all, I do not know why she feels that she can speak up on behalf of the Palestinians or how much time she has spent on the West Bank. I do not think that most of them would agree for one moment with anything she said about the proposal that we should stop, or that including Israel and the Occupied Territories in the Bill would damage the Palestinians. The Palestinians are concerned about their basic rights both to have their own state and to be able to live in what is now occupied by the Israeli Government and the Israeli Defence Forces in the completely different way that that occupation has created.
I am also very puzzled by what she said about anti-Semitism, which is in complete conflict with what was said by Margaret Hodge MP, who has thought about this very deeply—that the Bill is damaging from the point of view of creating anti-Semitism rather than alleviating it. The noble Baroness does not really respond to that point but has made points about what is happening in universities at the moment, which does not seem terribly relevant to this.
However, the point I really want to make is not to address the rather odd speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I want to ask the Minister: what legal advice have the Government taken about including the Occupied Territories in the Bill in the way that they are? I draw the Committee’s attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said: under international law, which we have accepted, this occupation is illegal and the settlements, which have grown and grown, are also illegal. So how can it be that the Government bring to Parliament a Bill that includes the Occupied Territories and does not differentiate them from the state of Israel? The counsel’s advice that I have seen says that to distinguish them is absolutely essential; it is pure sophistry to say that a distinction is made in the Bill and is an untenable view without any legal merit. I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment on that.
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill
Tuesday 14th May 2024
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 38-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (10 May 2024)
Baroness Drake
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to allow decision-makers in public bodies to consider the financial risk and impact associated with, for example, the delivery of contracted goods and services and the investments in the Local Government Pension Scheme, without falling foul of the prohibition.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 27, I shall speak in support of Amendments 45 and 46A in this group.
Part 2 of the Schedule allows exceptions for certain types of consideration from the prohibition in Clause 1. Amendment 27 seeks to expand on those exceptions by adding financial risk and impact alongside financial value and practical utility as considerations that decision-makers can have regard to without violating the prohibition. This would allow considerations of material financial risk and impact when making investment decisions in the local government pension scheme and public procurement decisions without falling foul of the prohibition.
The current wording of the Bill, which explicitly accepts consideration of financial value but not consideration of financial risk and impact, leaves investment decisions informed by such considerations exposed to legal challenges, alleging that they are influenced by political or moral disapproval. The LGPS has no trustees, but it does have decision-makers who carry judiciary-like duties requiring consideration of financial risk and impact, as recognised by the Law Commission; government legislation; statutory guidance from the Secretary of State; the Financial Markets Law Committee; and the expectations of the Pensions Regulator. All investments and divestments have territorial considerations and country-specific factors.
The Minister advises that the Government intend the word “value” to cover financial risk and impact, but relying on the exception of consideration of financial value does not suffice to address the problem of the potential for legal challenge. Financial risk and impact encompass wider consideration for informed decision-making, particularly long-term investments held by pension schemes. Financial value, financial impact and financial risk are referenced by financial services and government legislation; they are related, but separate. Financial value is narrower, often linked to the price of an investment or asset reflecting market view at a point in time.
Considering material financial risk an impact inherent in any investment is fundamental to making informed decisions on the likelihood of achieving financial goals. The chilling effect of a widely drawn prohibition, the very narrow wording of the exceptions for certain considerations and the fear of legal uncertainty and litigation risk undermining the effective fulfilment of judiciary and public duties. Banning public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns may be a manifesto commitment, but the manner of its implementation should not give rise to legal uncertainty or perverse consequences when considered through the lens of the public good. Unfortunately, this Bill has those consequences.
Litigation risk will come not only from traditional domestic organisations that lobby for particular social or non-financial considerations to be embedded into LGPS decision-making. The real concern emerging is that the Bill opens up the potential for legal challenge from proxies for Governments abroad or bodies corporate with particular commercial interests in areas where no formal sanctions or other restrictions are in place. Such challenges may be made not in good faith but, rather, from the sectoral, commercial or national interest of those raising the challenge. Anyone under this Bill with sufficient interest could seek judicial review as to whether an investment decision, influenced by consideration of financial risk or impact, was influenced by political or moral disapproval. Similar reasoning applies to those who make procurement decisions in the interests of the taxpayer.
Explicitly accepting financial risk and impact considerations from the prohibition is necessary if decision-makers are to meet their current statutory obligations or duties to illustrate. The DWP’s recent Occupational Pension Schemes (Funding and Investment Strategy and Amendment) Regulations 2024 made it clear that decision-makers should cover the level of risk in relation to the intended investment of the assets. They are obliged to consider the risk in the investments in addition to their value.
The local government pensions scheme is a statutory occupational pension scheme, subject to Secretary of State oversight and statutory guidance. The Local Government Pension Scheme (Management and Investment of Funds) Regulations, which cover investment strategy statements, refer to and set requirement for both value and risk. Investment strategy must include how risks are assessed and managed. Following the Law Commission report, Fiduciary Duties of Investment Intermediaries, the Government introduced statutory guidance to require the LGPS to publish its policy on how social, environmental and corporate governance considerations are taken into account in the selection, non-selection, retention and realisation of investments and to consider any factors that are financially material to investment performance—considerations which Amendment 46A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Collins, rightly seeks to protect.
Indeed, recent guidance published by the DWP on its website advises decision-makers to
“integrate financially material ESG factors into their decisions”
on investment and stewardship
“and seek the best possible risk-adjusted returns for the duration of their investments”.
Regulation again requires the LGPS to have a policy on how it exercises stewardship. The Bill, by not excepting financial risk and impact considerations from the prohibition, exposes the scheme to litigation in exercising those stewardship duties, as a result of any statements, views, conversations, votes cast, et cetera, during the engagement with the companies that it invests in. That undermines effective stewardship activities.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and to explain why I have put my name to her amendment. She makes a powerful case, and what I hope sways the Minister is that her case rests very much on the policies enunciated by the DWP and the Chancellor, who are very keen to see pension funds take a broader view of their responsibilities and take account of impact and risk. Indeed, the noble Baroness has cited specific DWP regulations which make it clear that risk is something distinct that it wants pension fund trustees to take account of. What she is proposing here is consistent with the wider direction of government policy about how pension fund trustees, particularly local government pension trustees, should see their responsibilities.
My understanding of the Government’s position is that actually “financial value” already captures all that and that the noble Baroness’s amendment, which I support, is therefore unnecessary. However, I must say that I think it is unlikely, given that so much effort has taken place in the Treasury and the DWP to use some other expressions going beyond “financial value” to capture the responsibilities of trustees, that anyone would automatically accept that the formulation currently in the Bill covers this wider meaning. If the Minister is right that it is the Government’s intention and it should have this wider implication, I do not see any difficulty in making that absolutely clear by accepting this amendment. I very much hope that in the spirit of constructive review and revision of legislation, without in any way challenging the fundamental electoral mandate behind it, this amendment is a proposal that the Government can accept. It is, indeed, entirely consistent with the direction of the Government’s own policies.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 27. The Bill has effects that were not thought of in advance. Local government pension schemes and their administrators have one thought in mind, which is to protect the financial interests of the pensioners and of the funds, and this amendment just clarifies the financial aspects of that. The administrators should not be involved in any international political situation, but be there to look after the funds of the pensioners. Amendment 27 does exactly that in clarifying, which is all it is doing, what this aspect of the Bill does. Therefore, I support it from these Benches.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, on her amendment and the others in the group. I understand where they are coming from, but it seems to me that the Government’s argument that this issue is already encompassed in “financial impact” holds some sway. There are concerns that I understand, but I am not sure they are necessary. Indeed, sight should not be lost of the fact that all local government pension schemes are ultimately underwritten by the Government and taxpayers. If the stewardship of these assets were swayed by issues which the Government themselves might not be comfortable with, there are powerful reasons why that stewardship should not be swayed by the kind of considerations that the Bill seeks to ensure does not happen.
Political or moral disapproval is not the same as environmental, social and governance issues. If a board of trustees decided to boycott an investment because of the country in which it is located, based on judgments of that country which do not accord with the views of the elected Government, the duties incumbent on the Government in accordance with this Bill would be at risk. That someone might take legal action against trustees who decide that they do not wish to make certain investments because they make a political or moral judgment that is not in accordance with that of the elected Government could equally be argued the other way. Trustees, certainly local government trustees, should not be taking these decisions.
I believe that was the manifesto commitment. Private pension schemes are not part of government and therefore that is a different decision, but local authority pension assets are ultimately underwritten by government so, should there be concerns about material financial risk and impact, they ultimately rest on the Government’s underpinning them anyway. Given that, as my noble friend said, “financial value” already encompasses these issues, I am relaxed about the current wording of the Bill. I hope that noble Lords across the Committee, especially those who have worked so hard on pension issues and with whom I normally fully agree, will not be too uncomfortable with the explanations that I am trying to put forward for not using pension assets as a disguised tool for political or moral judgments in the way that could happen and which this Bill seeks to deter.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group and will speak to Amendment 45, which I have signed. This amendment would remove “management” from the definition of a fund investment decision, allowing investors to carry out stewardship activities, including engagement and voting, without falling foul of the prohibition and enabling vexatious legal challenges.
Clause 12, on application of prohibitions, applies Clause 1 prohibitions to the LGPS. It includes acquisition, retention, management or disposal of assets in its definition of fund investment decision. However, advice from the LGPS identifies “management” as pension scheme stewardship—engagement with or seeking to influence the companies and sometimes Governments in which it invests and voting at annual general meetings. Without this amendment, local authorities would be open to legal challenge for statements made during engagement with the companies in which they invest or to votes against them at AGMs, should interested parties wish to argue that these were influenced by political or moral disapproval of a foreign state.
I hear the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, but the breadth of the Bill means that there is an opportunity for interested parties to use the moral and political disapproval of a foreign state as a way of challenging decisions that they do not agree with. The concern is that many will choose to take that view—and the Bill allows them so to do—on risks, for example, connected with a company’s purchases from a certain market, such as the use of forced labour in China, or investment in fossil fuels, which are becoming more financially risky. These could all be interpreted as disapproval of a foreign state or moral or political disapproval and thereby attract interested parties to challenge via judicial review and the quasi-judicial review process introduced in Clause 5.
Furthermore, foreign Governments have large stakes in listed companies, so concerns about any aspects of those companies could be litigated on the basis that they were influenced by disapproval of a significant fellow investor. With such a threat of litigation, it is easy to see how advice and full and frank discussion of decisions could be severely restricted. Having been a member of a local government pension scheme, I understand the need for advisers to be able to give frank advice without fearing that their words may be used later in legal action.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I will make three brief points from the view of a lawyer. An awful lot has been said very ably by previous speakers about the reasons why, particularly in relation to Amendment 27, there seems to be no disagreement. This has nothing to do with the politics of the Bill; it is to do with making certain that we make the lives of those who become members of the pension fund board acceptable. I do not want to say too much about the burdens of being on a board or being a trustee of a pension fund—I do not want to put people off—but we ought to legislate to make their life easier in an age where litigation risk is growing. This Bill adds to that litigation risk, which is the second factor that we should take into account. I will not go into Clause 5 now because we will come to it later, but we must take into account the extraordinary encouragement it gives to litigation.
Everyone seems agreed on the objective, particularly in Amendment 27, that financial risk and impact should be taken into account. It is baffling; it is bad legislation to rely on the words rather than to take two minutes to amend the Bill. I am sure this debate has cost more than the cost of putting the Bill right. It cannot possibly be about the parliamentary draftsmen’s pride. It is incomprehensible to me why we cannot put forward a short amendment to reduce litigation risk, make it more attractive to be a pension fund trustee and enable us all to go home a bit earlier.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, explained her Amendment 27 with great clarity, but I am afraid that I do not agree with her analysis of the problem, nor do I agree with the analysis of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for reasons which I will now explain.
Financial matters have been my stock in trade for well over half a century, since I left university. I have been trying to work out what these additional words, “risk” and “impact”, would add to the concept of financial value. The term financial value is not a term of art in my world, the accountancy world, but I think that it means something along the lines of the worth of something expressed in money terms. What something is worth can mean what it is realised for in a market transaction, or what it is worth in terms of the financial benefits it is evaluated to or expected to bring. I believe that neither “risk” nor “impact” add anything to the meaning of financial value.
I start with risk. Risk will affect value, so any determination of what something would fetch in a market or what benefits it would bring would of course take account of the risks when doing the calculations of financial value. This is just 101 of calculating things in financial terms. That is effectively why the DWP documents refer to risk. They do not refer to documents about risk as an adjunct to financial value; they are just encouraging the identification of risks, because that is a normal part of a balanced evaluation. While I do not think that the word risk does any particular harm to the concept of financial value, I do not think that the word is necessary.
I have struggled a bit more with working out what financial impact means. The only thing I could come up with was something like the evaluation of the net costs or benefits to be obtained from what is being acquired, but I cannot see what financial impact adds to the meaning of financial value. In this case, it would be positively confusing to add financial impact alongside financial value, because it might encourage somebody to litigate on the basis that there was a difference between financial value and impact, as Parliament clearly meant something other than financial value by the concept of financial impact. That would be a failure on our part to create certainty in our legislation.
I would also like to comment on Amendment 46A, from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, which is in this group. I expect he will be speaking to it a little later. I could not understand why the noble Lord has chosen UN-related documents to refer to when trying to put what he calls “established investment principles” into the Bill. The UK Government have already announced a series of actions that they have implemented in relation to the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, much of it already in legislation and unaffected by the Bill. In response to those principles, the relevant parts of our legal system are already in place, and we do not need to refer to a UN document to get any further on investment principles; they have already been interpreted by the UK Government.
Furthermore, we already have a perfectly good Stewardship Code in the UK, issued by the Financial Reporting Council, which deals with ESG matters. I do not believe the Bill alters that at all, so long as ESG principles do not acquire a territorial dimension.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
There was a little throwaway remark there: that ESG principles will not involve territorial matters. There are many examples where it could be quite a big influence.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
The noble Lord picks me up when I used a bit of shorthand. I really mean the contents of Clause 1 and the moral disapproval in relation to territorial consideration. I was just trying to say that ESG principles are unaffected; they are in the UK system of corporate governance and stewardship, and they are unchanged by this Bill, except where those principles are used in the way described in Clause 1.
The UN principles of responsible investment are not even issued by a UN body: it is a private body that issues them. Those principles have no standing whatever in the UK, except to the extent that UK-based signatories sign up to them. In my view, it is a rather odd thing to be putting into the Bill to define investment principles.
The UN Human Rights Council, which owns this territory, is, like most of the UN, including the General Assembly, pretty anti-Israel. I have an underlying concern that using these UN-affiliated principles—to use a shorthand—is just another way of allowing divestment decisions in relation to Israel by the back door. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, does not intend for that to be the effect of his amendment, but I have a fear that it will be the outcome of it.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
When I speak to my amendment, I will make the case for it. I would actually put the noble Baroness’s arguments on their head: if the purpose of the Bill was to stop BDS campaigns, it should have been about that. Our problem—and my noble friend’s problem—is that it is going to be much broader in scope, and will include things that this Government want to achieve. That is why these amendments are quite important.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I accept that this goes beyond the narrow BDS campaign that has been focused on Israel. Nevertheless, it is a concern for a number of us that the Bill will be effective as regards its impact on actions by UK public authorities towards dealings with Israel, which is why I raised it.
To finish, my concern on this score was underlined by the action of the UN human rights special rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This person wrote to the Local Government Pension Scheme in 2021 with a “request for action”, which included divestment from companies that are involved in the Occupied Territories. Here we have someone associated with the UN Human Rights Council telling our Local Government Pension Scheme to carry out divestment activities. That is why this whole area is so concerning.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
How does the noble Baroness think that that advice—I have not seen it—compares with the advice of her own Government in relation to the Occupied Territories?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I think we discussed this briefly on the previous day of Committee. The Government highlight the risks associated with dealings in relation to the Occupied Territories but do not call for divestment. Very explicitly, that is not the case.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Is not the noble Baroness making my point? It is a risk which the Government have highlighted in their own policy on the Occupied Territories. They are illegal, and have no legal status, and that investment could be at risk. The noble Baroness should make up her mind about what she is arguing.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
The issue of risk is a separate issue, dealt with in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. I was talking about later amendments which seek to apply UN principles to local government pension schemes. This is a fairly large group, and I think we have got a little cross-wired on which issues affect which part.
To conclude, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, has tabled a stand-part debate on Clause 12, which is in this group. I hope he is not serious about taking local government pension schemes out of the Bill. The actions of the special rapporteur in our domestic affairs are proof enough that we need local government pension schemes firmly within the Bill.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support what my noble friend Lady Drake has put forward in her amendment and very much hope that the Government will respond positively to it and accept it.
I listened carefully to what the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Altmann, said. I know that their arguments were made sincerely, but I was surprised that they were somewhat complacent in brushing aside the arguments put by my noble friend. Amendment 45 in my name adds to the important points raised by my noble friend Lady Drake, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and other speakers on the fiduciary duties of local government pension funds and their ability to consider risk.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of the noble Baroness who has just spoken on Amendment 45, as well as Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has eloquently drawn to the attention of the Committee, this is another of the points at which this legislation’s handling of Israel arises. The issue is the elision that has been made by the Government between the State of Israel and the Occupied Territories—the West Bank, the Golan Heights and east Jerusalem. Within the Occupied Territories there is a mass of illegal settlements, which the international community and the British Government regard as illegal. A whole rash of outposts have now been established from those settlements, which are also illegal. The elision between the State of Israel and the settlements is causing infinite trouble to this Bill, and I hope that the Minister will find some way to sort this out, because it really needs to be sorted out.
There is no disagreement, between the Government and those of us who wish to see this sorted out, about the settlements in the West Bank, Golan and east Jerusalem. We all agree that they are illegal under international law. I think we therefore agree—the Minister was very clear about this at Second Reading and when it came up in earlier amendments—that for British companies, pension funds or whatever else to invest in those illegal settlements, even unwittingly, would be to create an illegality. Presumably, the Government do not want a British company or a British pension fund to do that—and I hope that we would not want it either.
These amendments would make it somewhat easier for the bodies covered by the Bill to make sure that they were not being drawn into illegality in any way and thus acting in a way that would be contrary to government policy. I hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to the issue, because I am afraid that the elision between the State of Israel and the Occupied Territories is really damaging to the Bill’s prospects.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I have made no secret that this is a bad Bill that is badly drafted, and I spoke against it at Second Reading. In this debate, my suggestion that we should not agree Clause 12 is narrowly focused.
Local government pension schemes should be treated in exactly the same way as every other funded occupational pension scheme—the point made by my noble friend Lady Blackstone. I agree totally with the amendments tabled by my noble friends, and I certainly support their proposals, but my question is: do we need separate legislation to cover the local government pension schemes? My strong view is that we do not; the schemes should all be treated the same. They should come under the same rules as the fiduciary duties on trustees or committees —whoever is responsible for taking the decisions—and they should be the same across the board.
I tabled my clause stand part notice just to ask what the effect would be of not having this provision. Would it mean that I achieve my objective and that, should the provision be removed from the Bill, the local government pension schemes would be treated like other pension schemes? I suspect not. I suspect that I would need a more detailed amendment that would place local government pension schemes under the same responsibilities and law as occupational pension schemes more generally. That is my objective, and I hope that we can have this debate again on Report so that all pension schemes are treated the same.
I listened carefully to the remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, but I think her argument fails. First, there are private employers whose employees are within the local government pension scheme. Equally, there are public bodies whose pension schemes are not covered by this legislation, most obviously the universities superannuation scheme. So the division between the sheep and the goats in this respect is arbitrary. There is no consistency about—
Baroness Altmann (Con)
The noble Lord and I usually agree on so many pension issues—in fact, almost all of them. However, would he not agree that the fundamental difference between the local authority pension schemes and private schemes, or indeed the universities super- annuation scheme, is that the local authority pension schemes do not belong to the Pension Protection Fund and do not pay levies to it, and are therefore effectively underwritten by central government, not by local government? If a council goes bust, it is rather difficult to imagine that the burden of paying the pensions promised to local authority workers would not fall on government itself. That is indeed the reason why these schemes are not part of the Pension Protection Fund, and indeed do not pay any kind of levy. For me, that is a powerful reason—I would be grateful to hear the noble Lord’s view—why there should be a differentiation between those schemes and all other schemes. Typically, there is not, but that misses an important part of this debate.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I am afraid to say that it is not that simple. Technically, the history is that the funds established by local authorities to pay the pensions of their employees were there to protect the ratepayer rather than the members. That is the history of it, but I think we have moved on from that. Certainly, the members of these schemes believe that the money they have paid is there for their benefit. What would happen if a local government pension fund were unable to pay the benefits that were due is actually an open question. There is no explicit government guarantee for the local government pension scheme.
In addition, under the present provisions of the cost-sharing enforced by the Government on the Local Government Pension Scheme, it is the members who are the residual fund source of any shortfall in money. If there is a shortfall in the Local Government Pension Scheme, the contribution from the local authority is capped; it is the members who will lose out by having to pay higher contributions or seeing their benefits reduced. It is not a simple matter of “The Government will always make things good”. Initially, the members have to make things good. If the members cannot afford it, I suspect that it is right that the Government will step in—but that is not in the rules, so there is a contingent possibility there. So the situation is far less clear-cut than the sheep and goats I identified earlier.
Of course, this all comes about because technically, I think, under present law, the administration of the Local Government Pension Scheme comes under the aegis of a public body or public authority. I am not really sure what the difference is between the different terms under the Bill. But that is not how it is perceived by scheme members. They do not see their pension scheme as being a public authority, and we should respect that. As I say, my central thought is that local government pension schemes should be treated like all other occupational pension schemes.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I want to ask a simple question. At the moment, all pensions are in many ways looked at by the Pensions Regulator. Does that regulator distinguish between the local authority pension scheme and the pension scheme for me—for the Church of England —when, as you say, if there is not enough money within that pension fund, the members have to put it in? Is there a difference? Does the Pensions Regulator ever say, “Well, this is a local authority and I am going to look at them differently because the Government may put in money and I think your analysis is the right one?” If the regulator does not, why are we making a difference here?
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his question. This comes up under group 5, where I have a lot to say about the role of the Pensions Regulator, but that comes under the issue of enforcement. Here I am just talking about the principle of how we should think about local government pension schemes. Whatever the legal niceties, my view is that they should be treated exactly like every other pension scheme.
My amendment at this stage is simply to ask: if we do not have Clause 12, does that mean that the same rules will apply to all pension schemes, including the Local Government Pension Scheme, or do I have to move a more difficult, technical amendment on Report in order to achieve that objective?
We have to remember that all pension scheme trustees are subject to the fiduciary responsibilities. In the remaining 30 seconds of my time, I think it is worth highlighting what the pensions officer of the Local Government Association said in evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the House of Commons. He said the association’s prime concern was the impact of these provisions—the way they will interfere with its fiduciary duties. He also mentioned the additional administrative costs that would be involved and having to deal with the inevitable legal challenges. So the LGA has those practical concerns. My belief is that we should just treat all schemes the same and that the trustees should be left to get on with their job of looking after their members’ money.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I intervene very briefly as a person who benefits very considerably from a local government pension scheme; indeed, pretty much my whole income comes from one. One thing that always concerned me and colleagues who were in these schemes was that they were well run, that their management was good, that they were reliable and that our deferred income—which is what a pension scheme is using—was being looked after well. What I hear from these amendments that are being spoken to in this group is that we need to strengthen the Bill if we are to continue with well-run pension schemes.
I also rather agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, that it is very difficult to see what the case is for treating public authority schemes separately from private schemes—but that is a debate for another part of the Bill.
Here we should really be accepting technical amendments endorsed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, which it seems to me would improve the confidence of beneficiaries of these schemes that the reliable management of the schemes would not be damaged.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I should declare an interest as a beneficiary of the university superannuation scheme. Can the Minister remind us how many times any local government pension fund has taken decisions on political and ethical grounds towards investment in particular foreign countries? The Explanatory Notes to the Bill give us a very small number of examples of where local government pension funds have discussed whether they should. We will come later to the question of whether we should ban discussions of these sorts in a free country, but that is different. I worry about whether we are having an enormous debate about something which has not happened in this country and is unlikely to happen in this country. It happens in the United States, and the American debate filters into this country. Particularly on the right in British politics we have an awful tendency to pick up American partisan politics and try to apply them over here, which I am deeply unhappy about. Is this a real problem or a manufactured, confected problem? If so, could we possibly leave it aside until some future date when it perhaps becomes a problem?
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I also belatedly declare my interest as a beneficiary of the Local Government Pension Scheme.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, suggests that we are using the Bill to address a problem that has not happened, which prompts me to say that there are genuine concerns that it might happen. I come back to the point that I made in one of the interventions: the concern that we all have about this Bill is that its scope goes well beyond the concerns and the remedy in the manifesto. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and my noble friend are quite right to point out the litigation risks.
My noble friend also raised what I have repeatedly said: that this legislation can have a chilling effect that we do not want. We have a Government making all kinds of guidance. On the local government pension funds, we have specific regulations. All pension funds have a fiduciary duty. Noble Lords have raised the point about the duties of people responsible for making these decisions. The Bill will make those duties even more complex. When things become even more complex, people avoid doing the right thing. That is one of the important considerations.
I want to repeat what my noble friend Lord Davies mentioned. Talking as an old-fashioned trade unionist, I say that members’ pensions and pension funds are their deferred wages, yet there is an idea that somehow those do not belong to them and are not their responsibility. Most of the members primarily want those funds protected for their future security. They do not want political and moral considerations to play a part. They want them to be covered by the points that my noble friend Lady Drake has mentioned. No matter what is said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Noakes, this could impact the ability of those responsible for managing these funds to make decisions that take into account risk and other considerations to protect those funds. That comes from the potential for them to be challenged.
I have read some of the briefings on this. The ESG point is quite an important one. Many funds and investment pools in local government pension schemes work individually and collectively to improve corporate behaviour and long-term value of the funds, including through engagement in shareholder action at their AGMs. This is reflected in the statutory guidance that my noble friends have been referring to about administrating authorities formulating a policy to deal with their stewardship responsibilities. It is likely that engagement of this type would be undermined by the Bill.
I again come back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. When seeking to address behaviours by a company that involve significant financial, legal and reputational risk, there are many occasions when this will have geographical implications. We have seen, for example, the briefings on the use of tax havens by companies and the use of surveillance equipment. We have heard of the Uighur internment camps where bonded labour is encouraged by public authorities, particularly the kafala system. We will come on to another group on employment law, but the definition of the exceptions is very narrowly drawn in this Schedule. The Bill is unlikely to allow decision-makers to consider those behaviours.
It is unclear whether decision-makers in the LGPS could be accountable for screening selection decisions made by global equity funds where country-specific risks have been considered. That is an important point. My noble friend Lord Davies is absolutely right. As a trade unionist all my working life, I have seen the responsibilities of those who look after these pension funds. They should be common throughout. Why are we differentiating between local government workers and something beyond local government workers? Why should we have these different standards? It is really important that everyone who takes that responsibility of oversight, as a trustee or in management of the schemes, has those same principles of fiduciary duty and taking risks into account.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
What is the noble Lord’s view, given this fundamental difference between local authority pension schemes and all other pension schemes except unfunded ones? They do not belong to the Pension Protection Fund, have no protection in that regard whatever and do not pay a levy to the Pension Protection Fund. Therefore, ultimately does he believe that these would not be and are not in any way underwritten by Government and Parliament? Why would they be excluded?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend Lord Davies responded to that point. The reality is that there is nothing explicitly guaranteeing them. The Pension Protection Fund is not that old. I remember companies going bust and shareholders and other people getting the money and workers losing their pensions. You have only to look at Mirror Group Newspapers to see what can happen there. We want a common duty and responsibility. This Bill undermines that. That is the point that my noble friend Lord Davies was making. It is also the point that my noble friend Lady Drake is making. There are common principles. We do not want the creation of uncertainty when trying to implement a manifesto decision. I have repeated my plea to the Minister to sit down with us and work out a better way of implementing this manifesto commitment. This Bill is not doing that job and I have yet to meet a member of the Conservative Party who believes that it does. We need to sort this out.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions today and for their engagement. I particularly thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake, Lady Janke and Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord Willetts and Lord Hannay, who met me and officials to discuss the amendments a couple of weeks ago. During that meeting, noble Lords expressed their concerns regarding the financial and practical matters exception and the application of the Bill to the administering authorities of local government pension schemes. I sympathise with their ask for clarity in this area and I have taken some time to reflect on their comments. I will set out why, on balance, I think the Government’s drafting is sound on these points.
Before I address the amendments, I will set out why it is so important that the administering authorities of LGPSs are captured by the Bill. It is not a manufactured problem, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. Administering authorities come under frequent pressure from external pressure groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and the BDS movement to engage in BDS campaigns. We saw a notable example in 2021, when a UN special rapporteur wrote to the administering authorities of LGPSs demanding divestment from a number of Israeli companies. My noble friend Lady Noakes referred to this. The demands cited the LGPSs’ ability to play a transformational role.
We have also seen the BDS campaigners take credit for some decisions by administering authorities of LGPSs to divest from Israeli companies. For example, campaigners took credit for a decision by East Sussex Pension Fund to divest from an Israeli company.
Amendment 27, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, would ensure that the ban does not hinder the ability of public authorities to consider financial risk and impact in their investments in a way that is influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct. The Government agree with the policy intention of the noble Baroness’s amendment, and I acknowledge her expertise in this area.
However, having looked into the matter, we remain of the view that the Bill as drafted does not prevent public authorities being able to assess the financial and political risk of investments. The exception for considerations reasonably relevant to financial value and practical utility ensures that public authorities, including the administering authorities of LGPSs, will be able to make commercially viable decisions. This includes decisions to exclude investments if an assessment of the political and economic risks of an investment’s location could reasonably have an impact on the financial return of the investment.
I am grateful for the contributions of my noble friends Lady Altmann and Lady Noakes, and I confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, that
“financial value or practical utility”
captures considerations relevant to an investment’s long-term value and financial risk, not just its current value. I hope that my clarifying this on the Floor of the House provides the noble Baroness with reassurance.
Lord Warner (CB)
I want to clarify something that the Minister just said. Does this mean that, if my local authority pension scheme, from which I benefit, decided that an investment in Israel was risky and put the members’ money at risk, it could disinvest because it was risky, but not for any other moral grounds? Is that still permitted under this legislation?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I will cover that later in my response. There is a point about territoriality, which we will come on to address.
Additionally, the drafting of the guidance referenced in the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, does not change our view of the scope of this exception. I agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes’ assessment that the amendment could cause some confusion. If we were to accept it, it might raise questions about what considerations relevant to “financial value” and “practical utility” actually capture if they do not capture risk assessment.
I know that the noble Baroness will be disappointed that the Government are unable to accept her amendment, but we did not brush it aside and looked carefully at what she said at our helpful meeting. However, I hope that she is reassured by the Government’s position that the Bill’s current drafting adequately addresses her concerns, with that clarification.
Before I turn to other amendments, I will address the noble Baroness’s point about the impact of judicial review on LGPSs. I will provide a fuller response to the detail in the later group that was referred to in the debate. The Government believe that it is right that companies that have been the target of boycotts and divestment campaigns can challenge these decisions through the courts. There are safeguards in place to prevent undue or nuisance claims. None the less, the number of examples of administering authorities participating in BDS campaigns is relatively small; therefore, we do not anticipate a large burden on the courts.
Amendment 45, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, would remove management decisions from the Bill’s definition of “fund investment decision”, with a view to ensuring that the ban does not apply to the stewardship activities of administering authorities of LGPSs. I confirm, as we agreed at our meeting, that stewardship activity would be an example of a management decision.
It is right that the ban applies to stewardship. Otherwise, administering authorities could, as part of the stewardship of their investments, ask companies in which they have invested to engage in boycotts and divestment campaigns. If this was allowed, campaigners would be emboldened to lobby local government pension funds to ask companies in which they invest to boycott and divest. These campaigns distract local administering authorities from their core duties and could contribute to community tensions. We believe that allowing this kind of activity would undermine the ban.
The Bill contains an exception to the ban for considerations that a decision-maker considers relevant to the financial value or practical utility of an investment. Therefore, it would not prevent public authorities asking companies in which they invest to consider matters that they consider may affect the long-term value of their investments.
I understand that the noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady Janke, are concerned that this position conflicts with the Government’s wider policy on stewardship. We do not consider this to be the case. This is an extremely narrow Bill that will place restrictions only on the ability of the LGPSs’ administering authorities to make territorial considerations in their investment decisions that are influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct. LGPSs’ administering authorities will still be able, through effective stewardship, to exert a positive influence on investee companies to promote strong governance, manage risk, increase accountability and drive improvements in the management of environmental, social and corporate governance issues.
Administering authorities are ultimately responsible for setting the investment strategy of their funds, having taken proper advice. This includes setting their asset allocations to achieve a diversified portfolio of investments which overall is suitable to meet liabilities, as well as setting their approach to responsible investment, in line with statutory guidance. The Bill will support administering authorities to remain focused on their core duties, protecting the long-term financial interests of beneficiaries.
Amendment 46A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, would provide that a pension fund in scope of the ban can make territorial considerations influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct when making decisions in line with certain investment guidelines published by the UN. The Bill will apply only to campaigns that target countries and territories specifically, and therefore will not prevent the adoption of ESG requirements that are not specific to a country, such as modern slavery requirements. For example, to address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, the Bill will in no way prevent the LGPS administering authorities divesting from fossil fuels, as long as this policy is applied to all countries and territories consistently. Similarly, the Bill will not prevent the administering authorities divesting from companies implicated in human rights abuses, provided the policy is applied to all countries, rather than identifying particular countries or territories.
The Bill will not prevent LGPS administering authorities making a decision in line with guidelines published by the UN, as long as this does not entail the public authority having regard to a territorial consideration in a way that indicates moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct. For example, the Bill will not prevent public authorities having a policy to comply with all UN sanctions or UN Security Council resolutions, as that is not a territorial consideration. However, the policy must be genuinely non-country specific—
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Can the Minister specifically address the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in relation to territorial extent? I have in mind, because it was raised in other groups and discussions, companies that attempted to have factories or investments in the Occupied Territories and might then have withdrawn from those investments. I want her to focus on that. If a company decides that it will open a plant in the Occupied Territories and will not have the benefit of legal protection under international law, and it would be contrary to the advice the Government have given, and if a local government pension scheme then said, “Well, that company is putting our investment at risk and therefore we will disinvest”, would that be legal under the Bill?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I can confirm that LGPSs will be allowed to divest from, say, the settlements or Israel if the sole reason is that the investment is financially risky. It is if it is caught by the flavour of the Bill that we run into a problem—
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
It is important for clarification because the Government’s own advice says “It’s risky because it’s not legal and therefore won’t have that international law protection”. So it is very good if the Minister is being absolutely clear in relation to the Occupied Territories.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Perhaps I could just finish on the other points. It makes perfect sense to ensure that, when having regard to ESG requirements, these are applied consistently by LGPS administering authorities and do not single out particular countries or territories—because it is the latter that will breach the ban, as I think we all now understand.
The Bill allows for a number of exceptions, including considerations relating to labour market misconduct, modern slavery and human trafficking. Therefore, the Bill will in no way prevent the administering authorities adhering to modern slavery guidance.
Finally, I turn to the proposition from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, that Clause 12 should not stand part of the Bill—
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I am slightly puzzled by the Minister’s statement that the Government wish to avoid any territorial connection, since the Government themselves have placed large chunks of territorial description in the Bill. Could the Minister enlighten us on that? After all, it is the Government who have put down a Bill that talks about Israel and elides Israel with the Occupied Territories, the Golan Heights, east Jerusalem and the West Bank. Although they have confirmed their view that the settlements in all those areas are illegal, and therefore that investment in those settlements would be illegal too, it is the Government who are specifying this matter territorially. By all means, take the whole lot out—that would be fine.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
As I was trying to explain, the important point is that it depends on the motivation for the decision. The Bill would prohibit only investment and procurement decisions that would appear to a reasonable observer to be influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct, and have a territorial element. It would not prevent public authorities making any other kind of territorial or practical business considerations. I have been trying to clarify this.
As I am conscious of time, perhaps we could turn finally to—
Lord Warner (CB)
I am sorry, we are getting very confused, certainly at this end of the House, as to what is the issue of risk. If a country—let us forget the names of the countries in the Bill—has a reputation for unrest and uncertainty, the cautious trustees of a local government pension scheme are highly unlikely to want to put their members’ money at risk. Where we have a situation in, say, a number of Middle Eastern countries where that is the position, they would, quite reasonably, in pursuit of their fiduciary responsibilities, not invest in those countries. So they would presumably be documenting that the reason they were not investing in those countries was the risk at which it would put their members’ money. Is that the position? As long as they show that that the reason they have made investment decisions to disinvest from, let us say, Israel or the Occupied Territories, is because it puts at risk their members’ money, is that okay under this legislation?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
To confirm, I think that is what I said a couple of minutes ago. The sole reason must be that it is financially risky—that it is business risk guidance, not boycotts. My own feeling is that that is a helpful clarification. I am sure that noble Lords will look in Hansard at what I have already said.
If I might now finish, I would very much like to—
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, which she has indicated she is very anxious to do, I would like to go back to the, in my view, very unfortunate discussion that we have had about the definition suggested in Amendment 27.
As I understand it, it is accepted that financial risk is included within the wording. What is unclear—no doubt in years to come people will pore over the Minister’s speech, so I want another little bit for them to pore over—is: what about financial impact? I think the Minister said that that gave rise to uncertainty, but it would be helpful to know whether, in looking at the way in which decisions can be made, the financial impact can be taken into account. It would be so much better, of course, if we put the words in the Bill and left it not to accountants but to lawyers to deal with in the future.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I can reassure the noble and learned Lord that lawyers have been involved in drafting the Bill, as he can probably imagine. I tried to set out quite clearly at the beginning why we felt that the wording we got was right; that included financial impact. I have subsequently clarified the point about motivation and financial risk.
In the excitement, I have lost my place. I was asked about the effect of removing Clause 12, and was hoping to be able to answer the noble Lord. Removing the clause would mean that the ban would not apply to the fund investment decisions of administering authorities of LGPS. The administering authorities are local authorities, which are clearly a core part of the state and are therefore public authorities for the purposes of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act. That is why they are the only pension funds captured by the Bill. We have seen clear examples of local authorities attempting to engage in BDS activity in the past. It would not be appropriate to apply the ban to funds administered by private entities, such as the Universities Superannuation Scheme.
As I have argued before, council tax payers should be able to expect their local councils to exert time and effort on solving local issues, rather than spending time thinking about boycotts of foreign states when, as the noble Lord has said, the beneficiaries expect the responsible authorities to concentrate on returns and the ongoing viability of their investments in the interests of the beneficiaries. If the Bill were to stand without Clause 12, councils coming under pressure to develop their own policies on divisive international issues would be pushed towards an LGPS loophole to implement BDS campaigns.
The priority for these funds should be to provide stability and good long-term returns for the hard-working local government officials who are their members. We now know that this includes the noble Lord, Lord Warner, the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, and others. The Bill helps the administering authorities not to be distracted from this important purpose, and to focus on returns in a responsible, long-term way. For these reasons, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments and not to oppose the question that Clause 12 stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone for participating in this debate, particularly those who supported my amendment.
I should make it clear that I have not actually challenged the manifesto commitment; lots of others do, but I have not. I have challenged that the manner of its implementation introduces legal uncertainty and perverse consequences: inviting a wider range of legal challenges and judicial review. It would seem good business to address that.
The Minister says that she hopes I am assured by the Government’s assurances, but it is not me who needs the Government’s assurances; I am not a decision-maker in the Local Government Pension Scheme or in public procurement. Most people know that I am a trustee, but I am not in a local government pension scheme. It is those with the concerns—I know they have them—and the decision-making responsibility who are not reassured by these statements, and were not reassured by the statement of the Secretary of State.
We can stand on these Benches and argue between ourselves as to what “financial” does or does not embrace —I can bore you with 30 years of experience and what legal guidance I have had as a trustee—but that does not matter. We have an uncertainty; we are resting on a government statement that it is not uncertain, but we are already uncertain as to whether it includes impact. We could simply address the issue and put “financial risk” as one of the explicit considerations that need not necessarily fall foul of the Bill. I have not heard a single good reason today why such a simple tweak could not address this issue. I have had wider discussions on a whole range of things. It is not only me but people I have spoken to—who will be engaged in decision-making—who believe it opens up the range for judicial review and legal challenge, and feel it has legal uncertainty. It seems to be good sense, when you are looking at a fund of £360 billion, that when those concerns are expressed, you address them.
The Bill creates a whole new machinery that allows the checking of the integrity of local government pension scheme investment decisions against a new set of criteria. That has opened up new grounds for judicial review and given opportunities or succour to possibly bad-faith actors. Legal proceedings could demand to know all the details of exchanges and engagement in discharging stewardship duties, to see whether an investment decision fell within an accepted category. In a £360 billion local government pension scheme, I would want to nail that. If I was a government department and was going to introduce that machinery—which suddenly introduces a whole new set of criteria for investment decisions—I would want to nail down the range of areas under which local government pension scheme decision-makers could be attacked.
There is uncertainty. I quote from the Financial Markets Law Committee report, which the Government have endorsed and think is a good idea. It says that
“investment decisions have all become more challenging in the context of sustainability and the subject of climate change … Today it is sometimes easier to state the duties than it is to apply them”.
Well, the Bill makes it even more difficult to apply them. It brings a whole new range of criteria and invites legal uncertainty at the same time, because we cannot agree on the definition of “financial value”, but if we added a tweak, such as risk and impact, we could nail some of this. As has been said, why can we not just lock it down and get rid of some of this uncertainty?
We have some guidance on impact. I cannot bring every reference document that I would bring to the table if I was sitting in a negotiating room, but we have very new guidance from the DWP, on its website, on social factors and the impact. These are not the only factors, but it gives a meaning to “impact”:
“the impact of social factors on an investment”
or the “impacts of an investment”. It is a pretty wide range. In fact, on ESG, the statutory guidance to local government says that it can consider any factor that is financially material to investment principles. So we can track from the Government’s own publication what impact means. The Minister referred to having government lawyers; they will have drafted some of those documents.
The explanatory statement to Amendment 46A says that its intention is for there to be the ability to carry on applying ESG factors in the way they have traditionally been applied. We know what that means in local government, because it is set out very clearly in statutory guidance.
On the issue of territorial matters, I tried to give an extreme example—passive funds. Anybody who is a trustee knows what passive funds are. On the logic of this, unless we put “risk” in very clearly, if you have a passive fund that does climate transaction benchmarks, you might be liable to someone saying, “Well, there was a company or a country in there that was screened out; did you individually interrogate the way in which that passive fund that you invested in was screened out?”. I know that is extreme, but this is the situation we get into unless issues such as impact and risk—clearly legitimate factors to take into account, as set out in statutory guidance from the relevant department to LGPS—can unequivocally be taken into account.
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, spent a lot of time referring to the Local Government Pension Scheme as a statutory pension scheme; it is not a trust-based scheme. Absolutely—I mentioned that because I wanted to set out that I understood that distinction because it is not relevant to the point I am making. It is not relevant to the point that it is ambiguous and uncertain under the terms of this legislation.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The rules say “normally brief” but I think the Committee would like to hear from my noble friend on this important issue.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
With respect, I am not stopping the noble Baroness; I am just asking her to be brief.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
I will accept the constraint.
Finally, I take the point about lawyers having been involved in drafting this. I do not mean to be rude but in the area of investment and pension decisions, the road is littered with government-cleared legislation and regulation that has ended up being problematic or challenged in the courts and having to be revisited. I do not think we can rely wholly on that argument.
I think my amendment is being overblown. It is very clear that there is a problem, and that those engaged in this decision-making feel that there is a problem. The Government are opening up areas of legal uncertainty. We can nail it with a couple of words. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill
Tuesday 14th May 2024
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 38-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (10 May 2024)
Lord Hendy
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lady Blower, and at her request, I beg to move Amendment 30, which is intended to add to paragraph 6 of the schedule.
The paragraph, which we discussed in Committee last week, permits a decision-maker to take into account whether the decision might put the UK in breach of its obligations under international law. In the last debate, we discussed the nature of the international law obligations comprehended in this paragraph and the question of who determines whether there has been a breach of them. I do not seek to reopen that debate; this amendment is not dependent on the outcome of it.
The amendment would make it clear that the decision-maker will be permitted to take into consideration and reject a tender or an investment that the decision-maker reasonably considers might put the UK in breach of its obligations under the genocide convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or any UN Security Council resolutions supported by the United Kingdom. The amendment would still stand and have force, whether or not the Government accept amendments along the lines suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, identifying what entity appropriately determines what amounts to a UK breach of international law. Amendment 30 merely clarifies that the conventions and resolutions mentioned in it are to be regarded as UK obligations.
I find it impossible to see what conceivable objection there could be to identifying matters of such grave importance to a law-abiding nation. The rationale is so obvious that I cannot think of anything more to say in support of my noble friend Lady Blower’s amendment, and I look forward to hearing that the Minister will support it.
I will now speak to Amendment 32. Paragraph 8 of the Schedule permits the potential decision-maker on procurement to take into consideration certain forms of “labour-related misconduct”. The problem is that that is a very limited list. We touched on that in Committee last week. In the last debate, the Minister asked me to provide further details on whether the violations of core labour standards would be covered by the provisions of paragraph 8. I looked at that matter again and did not take up her kind invitation to write to her, because Amendment 32, which was not before us last week, makes clear the distinction between the core labour standards identified in the amendment and the standards set out in paragraph 8.
I will explain. Paragraph 8 is confined only to conduct that would amount to a criminal offence in relation to slavery or human trafficking orders, failure to pay the national minimum wage and labour market orders under the Immigration Act. That list does not currently permit those making procurement and investment decisions to have regard to the fundamental labour standards binding on all countries by virtue of their membership of the ILO. As a matter of convenience, we can take those standards from Articles 399(2) and 399(6) of the trade and co-operation agreement—the Brexit deal—signed by our then Prime Minister in 2020, where they are conveniently summarised.
The provisions commit the UK to respect, promote and effectively implement the ILO Constitution, which includes the Declaration of Philadelphia of 1944, the
“ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up, adopted at Geneva on 18 June 1998 … the ILO Decent Work Agenda as set out in the 2008 ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization”,
and the fundamental ILO conventions. The fundamental ILO conventions are those identified in those provisions of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement and in the amendment. They protect freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour; the effective abolition of child labour; the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation; decent working conditions for all with regard to, inter alia, wages and earnings, working hours, maternity leave and other conditions of work; health and safety at work, including the prevention of occupational injury or illness and compensation in cases of such injury or illness; and, finally, non-discrimination in respect of working conditions, including for migrant workers.
The only point in that list which is included in paragraph 8 of the Schedule is the second point that I mentioned: the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour. That is the only point at which my amendment and paragraph 8 coincide, because paragraph 8 of the Schedule deals with slavery and trafficking. However, all the other elements of the fundamental labour standards are outside paragraph 8, even though they are binding on every country which is a member of the ILO by virtue of its membership and, regardless of whether they have ratified these conventions, they are matters of customary international law. These are vitally important standards, as the UK government representatives will doubtless reiterate at the International Labour Conference of the ILO, which takes place in June.
Plainly, paragraph 8 does not go far enough. International labour standards are important for ameliorating the conditions of workers in less developed and authoritarian regimes, and, from a more self-interested perspective, for diminishing the extent to which UK manufacturers and UK suppliers of services and works are undercut by competitors seeking to, as I put it on the last occasion,
“exploit cheap labour, poor conditions, inadequate standards, lack of enforcement, and powerless trade unions”.—[Official Report, 7/5/24; cols. 23-24.]
I refer to the examples I gave on the last occasion, but I will not repeat them.
Reverting to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, on the last occasion, identification of whether there has been a breach of a fundamental ILO convention is not here left to the lay opinion of the decision-maker in the public entity. The ILO has extensive and long-established machinery for determining whether each state is in conformity with each of the fundamental conventions and each of the conventions that state has ratified. The UK fully participates in that machinery and those determinations. Why, then, I ask rhetorically, should the minimum standards of the fundamental international labour conventions, which are all ratified by the UK, not be included in the list of legitimate labour-related misconduct which procurement decision-makers can take into account under the Bill? I wait with anticipation to see whether the Minister will seek to justify their exclusion.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, when we debated paragraph 6 of the Schedule in an earlier group, I argued that it was inappropriate to include an international law exception in the Bill. Therefore, it will not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, to find that I do not support the extension to paragraph 6 that his Amendment 30 seeks to achieve.
The briefing sent by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign asserted that without this amendment, the Bill could compel public bodies to contravene the genocide convention. This extraordinary statement was explained in the context of the much-publicised opinion of a number of UK lawyers, including the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, that the International Court of Justice had ruled that there was a plausible case that Israel has committed genocide. As the then President of the ICJ subsequently made clear, this is a complete misinterpretation of the ICJ’s judgment. Judge Joan Donoghue, the then President of the ICJ, has stated that the court decided that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in court. However, to correct something that is often said in the media, the court did not decide that the claim of genocide was plausible. So the items of international law referred to in the amendment, including the genocide convention, basically have the name “Israel” etched on them. Whether by design or otherwise, this amendment would simply make it easier for public authorities to find excuses to boycott Israel and it would be very damaging if this amendment were accepted into this Bill.
Amendment 32, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, raises rather different issues. I am conscious that I am in dangerous territory because of the acknowledged expertise in labour law of the noble Lord compared with my ignorance of labour law. However, it is my understanding that the ILO conventions do not have direct effect in the UK. I thought that we achieved compliance through our domestic legislation. The noble Lord spoke about ILO matters on the last Committee day and, while he made the point that the UK is bound by the ILO conventions, I do not think that he claimed that they had any direct effect in UK law.
If I am correct, this amendment is a very unwelcome addition to the Bill because it seems to give full legal effect to the ILO conventions directly. These conventions are not drafted as stand-alone laws but in rather broad terms. They lack a lot of definitions and the language is often rather vague. That is why national Governments have to adopt them using their own legislation. I am not speaking against the ILO conventions; I have no views one way or the other on the conventions. My point is that we comply with these conventions through our national law and that law is the foundation of labour-related misconduct, which is covered in paragraph 8. It seems to me that paragraph 8 means that we can hold overseas suppliers to the same standards to which we hold UK suppliers. In particular, it aligns with the provisions of the Procurement Act which was passed last year. That is a wholly proper basis for this Act, rather than some broader concept of principles that cannot be read directly into our law.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to offer a few remarks on these two amendments.
Amendment 30 does not really extend what paragraph 6 already does, because the expression “international law” in paragraph 6 includes everything that Amendment 30 mentions. My criticism of it, aside from the points that were discussed on day 3, is that it is just redundant. “Convention” is just another term for “treaty” and “obligations under international law” will include obligations arising under treaties to which the United Kingdom is a party. They will obviously include the genocide convention. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a convention or a treaty but a resolution of the General Assembly, but it is widely believed to reflect customary international law and so is binding on the United Kingdom.
The reference in the amendment to the Security Council resolutions is also unhelpful and confusing. Security Council resolutions will be binding on the United Kingdom provided that they contain decisions under Article 25 of the United Nations charter, because it is the decisions of the Security Council that are binding on member states. Those resolutions will be binding on the United Kingdom, whether we supported them or whether we abstained in those votes.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, there is no one on the Liberal Democrat Benches tonight who is sufficiently expert in international law to intervene at length in this debate, so I will be very brief.
I read the discussions from the last evening we met—I apologise that I was unavoidably away—and I note the argument made that international law is not simply the law but a broad network of treaties, conventions and agreements to which the UK has become a party. Much of it was drafted in the formative years after the Second World War by British lawyers—Conservative British lawyers, under Conservative Governments—in which we played, as Ministers still like to say, a leading role. Some of us are now quite nervous that there are some elements within the current Conservative Party, some of whom are in government, who are not particularly committed to maintaining our established reputation as a staunch upholder of international law.
We on these Benches would suggest that the Government take back paragraphs 6 and 8 of the Schedule, take into account the criticisms that the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and others have made, and consider how we can ensure that these are strengthened and clearer, so that we can all agree that there is nothing in the Bill that encourages denigration of international law. All those involved in taking investment decisions should be quite clear that, in dealing with overseas investments, the framework of international law is one that should always be considered and accepted.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I intervene briefly, not because I am an expert on international law but because I have a great sense of déjà vu about the way this debate is opening up by comparison with the previous debate. The issue seems to be the creation of uncertainty about what the law means. That was the issue dominating the previous debate: that the trustees of pension schemes would be left in a state of uncertainty if we did not put clearer language in the Bill. This debate is starting to go through the same process but in another area, where there could be uncertainty about what people do in interpreting this legislation before they make their decisions. We are opening up issues that the Government need to attend to, to make sure that the Bill is clear to the people who will be required to implement it.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 32 and I want to focus my main comments on it. The contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, is a helpful one because he is focusing on strengthening this.
One of the problems, when we look at paragraph 8 and the implications of international conventions and the ILO, is that it is sometimes difficult to put it into concrete examples. The problem I had—and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, touched on this before—is when something goes into a territorial policy. I think of the debate we had on construction in Qatar and the British companies that were operating in building those sites, where the Qatari authorities were forced to have inspections by the ILO and forced to respond to a report that said their legal standards were not adequate. It could be that, at that time, a lot of investors, and perhaps even public authorities, would say that they should not be investing in companies that are adopting those sorts of laws—namely, those applied by the Qataris. Many textiles supply chains go into, for example, Bangladesh. The biggest fashion industry manufacturer is in Vietnam. The example of the Rana Plaza disaster, which we mentioned the last time we debated the Bill in Committee, required ILO intervention and British companies to say, “We will not invest”. Some of the most popular high street companies used strong leverage to get a change of policy by the Bangladesh Government. These are all legitimate concerns.
The fear is that this legislation will stop people making those sorts of decisions, or even expressing those sorts of opinions. It is that chilling effect again. Whoever replies to this debate—I thought it might be the noble Lord—should focus on the kind of concrete examples I have given, and give us an assurance that paragraph 8 includes all the things that my noble friend mentioned and that we will not have a situation where we are limited to very strict criminal things, which everyone accepts, such as slave labour and forced labour. There are lots of other examples. In the Rana Plaza example, people were forced to work in such dangerous conditions that hundreds lost their lives. Many of them were widows, leaving children to cope on their own.
It is important that we bring this debate back to some sort of reality. What are we talking about? What are the impacts of these sorts of things? We start off with a manifesto commitment on BDS, and now we are into the territory of saying that there will be a limit on what public bodies can do to ensure compliance with proper labour standards—things that this Government have been strongly advocating for.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, as I and my noble friend the Minister have set out in responses to previous groups in Committee, the Government take their obligations under international conventions and UN Security Council resolutions very seriously. This Bill is consistent with those obligations. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that this Government do not take these responsibilities under international law seriously.
Amendment 30, from the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, would exempt from the ban considerations relevant to whether the decision in question would place the UK in breach of its obligations under international conventions, including the genocide convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and any UN Security Council resolution.
As my noble friend the Minister explained in an earlier group, where a judgment has been made that a party has breached international law, it is for the Government, and not a public authority, to determine the appropriate response. It is right for this Bill not to give public authorities discretion to engage in BDS campaigns based on their own interpretations of international law. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, on this point.
I will touch on the genocide convention in particular; I am grateful for the intervention of my noble friend Lady Noakes. Genocide is a crime and, like other crimes, whether it has occurred should be decided by competent courts and judges, after consideration of all the evidence available, in the context of a credible judicial process. It is the long-standing policy of successive UK Governments that judgment as to whether genocide has occurred is for a competent national or international court to determine, not public authorities.
I reassure the Committee that nothing in the Bill will prevent public authorities complying with the UK’s obligations under international conventions. It is not necessary to broaden the international law exemption in this way, and so I respectfully request that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, withdraw the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blower.
Amendment 32, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, would broaden the existing exception for considerations that relate to labour-related misconduct. I assure noble Lords that the Government are of the view that employers who seriously violate the rights of their workforce are not fit to compete for public contracts. That is why the Bill already contains an exception to the ban for considerations made as part of an investment or procurement decision that relates to labour-related misconduct. This exception mirrors the approach taken in the Procurement Act 2023, which this House agreed in the previous Session. Public authorities can use the exception in the Bill when assessing whether a particular supplier has been complicit in modern slavery or a contract risks involving modern slavery. They must do so on a supplier-by-supplier basis, rather than by taking a blanket approach on the basis of a supplier’s country of origin. Public authorities will be able to do the same for investment decisions, assessing modern slavery risks for each investment target, rather than taking a blanket country-based approach.
Additionally, the Procurement Act 2023 provides a range of serious labour violations as grounds for exclusion. These must be considered for every supplier wishing to participate in each procurement within scope of the Act. The Act expanded the scope of the grounds on which suppliers must or may be excluded from procurements for labour violations, and added new grounds, including failure to pay the national minimum wage and offences relating to employment agencies. To reiterate, this is mirrored in this Bill. The exceptions to the Bill, just like the exclusion grounds in the Procurement Act, include considerations relating to various labour market, slavery and human trafficking offences. These are based on the serious labour offences within the purview of the director of labour market enforcement.
It would not make sense to expand the exception to the ban beyond what has already been recently agreed by the House in the Procurement Act. This would put the Bill out of step with that Act and create confusion for public authorities in scope of both this Bill and the Procurement Act.
The grounds for excluding suppliers in the Procurement Act are framed in terms of UK labour offences in our domestic legislation—and are, therefore, binding—rather than by reference to International Labour Organization conventions, to provide greater clarity to contracting authorities regarding when the grounds apply. I believe that this confirms the point from my noble friend Lady Noakes.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to the debate, and to the Minister for his reply. I shall be very brief.
In relation to Amendment 30, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, argued as to whether or not Israel is in breach of the genocide convention. That is really not the issue. What is proposed is that a decision-maker should take into account whether any country is in breach of the genocide convention. The question of the State of Israel is not raised here. Of course, this matter is before the ICJ and I for one would hesitate to say anything about that until the ICJ has reached a decision.
The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, made the point that the various conventions and provisions in the amendment are already included in international law. I take that point. I accept that. However, I think the purpose of my noble friend’s amendment to make it clear that those elements were included in international law. If they do not add anything, they do not detract from the original proposition either.
Finally on Amendment 30, the Minister raised whether it is for the Government or a public authority to decide whether there is a breach. This amendment does not touch on that subject. Whoever makes the decision is permitted to take into account the various conventions listed in the amendment.
So far as Amendment 32 is concerned, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made the point that the conventions of the ILO do not have direct effect. Of course, that is absolutely right, but she said that passing the amendment would in fact give direct effect to the ILO conventions. My response to that is: not at all. It does not implement the ILO conventions in UK law; it simply gives permission to decision-makers to take into account whether the proposed supplier or territory is in breach of ILO conventions. The problem is the narrow confines of paragraph 8, which the amendment is intended to expand.
The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said that the amendment is directed to countries—forgive me; I am not doing justice to the elegance of his language. He pointed out that the conventions are directed to countries whereas paragraph 8 is directed to companies, to particular suppliers. That is true, but paragraph 8 begins with a disapplication of Section 1, stating:
“Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as it relates to labour-related misconduct”.
Section 1 is on the basis of territorial considerations, not company considerations. As I understand it, the Bill would not prevent a public entity discriminating against a particular company as long as it did not discriminate against a country. It is for that reason that it appears to be entirely logical and justifiable to extend paragraph 8 to territorial considerations, which are inherent in the ILO conventions. Nevertheless, if the noble Lord is able to offer me any help in clarifying my amendment, it would be gratefully received.
Finally, the Minister said that he is satisfied that the grounds of exclusion offer sufficient protection for labour rights. With the greatest respect, I disagree. I think these additional protections are necessary. He underestimates the fundamental nature of the ILO conventions that are called into account. Nevertheless, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blower, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the prohibition on a person publishing a statement indicating that they would have acted in a way prohibited by Clause 1 if it were legal to do so.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to move this amendment with the permission of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, who, owing to the delay to the start of today’s deliberations, is unavoidably detained at an event being held, I believe, in his honour, so it would have been incredibly rude for him not to be present. Given that I think we are of one mind on this issue around Clause 4, I am very happy to speak to the amendment on his behalf.
There is much to complain about with this Bill, as we have heard in every group that we have discussed so far, but to my mind Clause 4 has to be one of the most egregious, nonsensical and unnecessary clauses in the entire Bill and, for that matter, pretty much any Bill that I have ever been involved with bringing through either House.
When I first read this clause—which talks about statements that a public body may make with regard to whether it will be taking a decision on BDS— I thought, “Ah, what the Government are trying to do here is to stop a public body making a statement that could be interpreted as a threat to commit to a boycott, or to divest”. But that is not right. This is a prohibition on making a statement that you are not going to enter into any kind of divestment or boycott decision. This is extremely odd.
I will give what might be a ridiculous example, but then I think this is a ridiculous clause; I will use it to explain to noble Lords just how crazy this is. The Minister is a stylish lady. I saw her when she walked in tonight and I thought she looked good. She has a very nice handbag with her this evening. It is very smart. I might have thought to myself, “I wouldn’t mind having that handbag away; I think I’ve got an outfit that it could go with”. But I will not do that to the Minister, because it would be a crime.
I can stand here and say that I am not going to take her handbag away with me tonight because it would be a crime and would, quite rightly, cause me to be punished, perhaps lose my job, embarrass the kids and all the rest of it; I am not going to do that to the Minister. I can say that; it is perfectly fine for me to say that about the crime of theft and depriving the Minister of her smart handbag. I can stand here, or anywhere I like, and make that statement. I am not threatening to do anything or saying that I intend to take away her handbag. I am saying that I am not going to remove her handbag because that would be a crime. That is fine for me to say.
I am not able to make an equivalent statement about divestments or boycotts if I am a public body under Clause 4. That is over the top, unnecessary and something that I cannot think we would ever apply to any other crime. We do not apply this to terrorism, child abuse or murder but, for some reason, the Government think it is necessary to put in this Bill that a public body cannot make a statement saying that it will not breach the terms of the Bill. That is extraordinary.
Further, it cannot even be the case under Clause 4 that a public body should be likely to make such a statement that it intends not to break the law. I have never seen anything like this in a piece of legislation anywhere. I am very curious as to the thinking behind it. I wonder whether the Minister could point us in the direction of an equivalent clause in any other Bill, from any period in the history of this fine country. To me, this goes beyond a gagging clause, which I think it has been called. This is thought police. This is saying that, even if it is suspected that a public body is likely to make such a statement, it can be subject to an information notice, to penalties and to unnecessary intrusion. I just do not see why it is needed, even if we were to accept— and we do not—that the approach the Government are taking in the Bill as a whole would be successful.
The last time we met in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, raised some interesting points about Clause 4. He made a very good speech, but on Clause 4 he was asking the Minister about her statement of compliance with ECHR. It was his view that she may have been misled or ill advised, or that it may not have been correct for her to sign off on compliance, particularly with Clause 4 in mind. He committed to go away and consider that, and I am interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, might have to say this evening. I suspect that he may have read the Constitution Committee report that advises that the House may wish to consider whether Clause 4 should be removed from the Bill. I think the committee has a very good point, and we are very much of the mind that Clause 4 should be removed from the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, has tabled his intention that Clause 4 should not stand part of the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I support this amendment and the stand part notice, to which I have added my name. I declare again my interest that as a bishop I can, in certain circumstances, be deemed to be a public body in my own right. I can also assure your Lordships that I have no acquisitive designs on any noble Baroness’s handbag this evening.
Clause 4 represents an attack on free speech. It prohibits even statements that suggest a person would have acted differently had it been legal to do so, even if they make it clear that they are going to act within the confines of the law. It is hard—as the noble Baroness just said—to see this as anything other than a sizeable infringement on that basic right to free speech, which is a cornerstone of our democracy.
Your Lordships will not be surprised that I oppose that restriction as a matter of principle. Free speech should be limited only when it is absolutely essential in order to prevent some very grave harm. I have heard nothing to date to suggest that such grave harm is likely to arise. If the Minister or her colleague has an example—perhaps in the aforementioned handbag— I plead with her to share it with us tonight.
Having taken a matter of principle, let me now set out why I believe the clause also contains important practical challenges. The Local Government Association has labelled this clause as particularly problematic. The Government say in the Explanatory Notes that councillors are not prohibited from expressing support—including in minutes—but if that is so, why is it not clearly in the Bill? Why not just remove this problematic clause?
Aside from the moral qualms that we might have about limits on freedom of speech, it is difficult to see how this clause could be enforced. It makes councillors particularly vulnerable to challenge when we elect them to give their opinions; they have to be free to do so. I also know, from having served for a good number of years as the independent chair of a local authority standards committee, that it is not always clear when the elected member is acting on behalf of a council or on their own behalf. Noble Lords may well remember one famous case where this distinction lay at the heart of it, involving the person who was at that time the Mayor of London. Mayors are of course public bodies in their own right, and that entire case, at the various levels it went through, hung on whether at that time he was acting as the Mayor of London or simply as a private individual going about his own business.
We heard at Second Reading the concerns that this will create a culture in which difficult ethical discussions do not take place, because of fears that this clause might be brought into action. Later this year, we are going to have a general election, I believe. Many candidates in that election may also serve on local government bodies. It would be invidious to our democracy for a candidate not to be able to answer honestly a question raised at a hustings, or by a journalist, out of fear that action might somehow then follow under this clause.
I have focused on local authority members, but we have spent many hours already in Committee discussing the uncertainty as to who exactly constitutes a public authority or a public body, or even whether those two terms mean the same thing. If we end up with university authorities being so classified, do we really wish to fetter the free speech that lies at the heart of healthy academic institutions—in fact, the free speech of which, on just about every other occasion we have discussed it in this House, I have always felt this Government to be a strong supporter? The only way to avoid such a culture of intimidation, which I am sure we all agree would be detrimental to local democracy, and potentially to wider civic and public life, is to remove this clause altogether.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I have been trying to think of the right reverend Prelate as a public body. He is certainly a public authority, but he is at most a hybrid public body. I am not quite sure what sort of hybrid he is in this respect.
My name is on Amendment 33 and the clause stand part notice. I make it clear that this entire clause should go. The exact phrase in the Conservative Party manifesto in 2019 was:
“We will ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries”.
There was nothing about what they say there, although I note that the department’s memorandum for us says:
“It is intended that the measures will be widely construed”.
This is widely construed to the degree of being ambiguous and imprecise, as so much of this badly drafted Bill clearly is.
Yesterday I ran into the noble Lord, Lord Frost, in the corridor and commented on his rather good article, which was in the Telegraph on Friday, on freedom of speech as fundamental to the Conservative Party. I then asked him what he thought about Clause 4 of this Bill. He looked at me in some confusion and said, “I thought that had been withdrawn already”. I wish that that thought was a precursor of the change.
I have found it difficult to find arguments in support of the clause. I looked through the Commons Public Bill Committee stage, where evidence was taken from the legal adviser to the Free Speech Union, who said:
“My position is that clause 4 really needs to go in its entirety … there is no need—I think it is not necessary either politically or perhaps even legally—to prohibit statements. The mischief that is to be prohibited is the threatened act … This Bill very clearly targets expressions of political and moral conscience, which is to say the form of expression that is most highly protected by article 10””.—[Official Report, Commons, Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill Committee, 5/9/23; cols. 38-39.]
of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is not just the European Convention; we go back to the Atlantic charter, the fundamental basis on which the post-war international order rested, drafted by British diplomats, and in which the four freedoms include freedom of speech and freedom of belief.
I note that, in the Commons stages, one Conservative MP, David Jones, said:
“This is a Conservative Government. Conservatives believe in and value free speech … This is a deeply un-Conservative measure and I believe that the amendment”—
to Clause 4—
“is right and that the provision should go”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/10/23; col. 915.]
The Committee should take that seriously. In the Commons debates, another Conservative MP referred to this clause and the ones that follow as introducing the concept of “thought crime”.
The Constitution Committee of this House’s very critical report says:
“The protection of free speech is a fundamental right. In our view, clauses 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) unduly limit freedom of speech … The House may wish to consider whether clause 4 should be removed from the Bill”.
I dare to suggest to the Minister that this House will reject this clause and that, when the Bill returns to the Commons, it is quite possible that a number of Conservative MPs who do believe in conservative values of free speech will find it convenient not to be there when the Commons vote again. Therefore, it would be wise for the Government to consider their position and, I suggest, withdraw this clause.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, was kind about my previous speech and almost enticed me to get up and go over some of this ground again. When I spoke on Amendment 19, I was concerned about the statement of compliance with the Human Rights Act that the Minister had signed in the Bill. I probably took my eye off the ball a little by going for that rather than Clause 4 directly. But I said that the reason for the non-compliance was the presence of Clause 4 in the Bill, which was clearly in breach of Article 10 of the ECHR. I asked the Minister to cite the Government’s legal advice that justified that statement of compliance. I was given the usual answer from Government Front Benches, that the Government do not reveal their legal advice.
After that event, I turned my attention, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, did, to the Constitution Committee’s report, which is an interesting document. Paragraph 5 says, in bold type, that this clause is in contravention of the ECHR. It does not mince its words; it says it clearly and unequivocally. It is worth looking at the make-up of the Constitution Committee. It has 12 members, five of whom are distinguished lawyers. It has a former Lord Chief Justice, a former Lord Chancellor and three eminent King’s Counsels. It also has a former Conservative Leader of this House: the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. The Minister was reticent about quoting the Government’s legal advice, but I am not at all reticent about citing the source of my legal advice: the Constitution Committee.
I can see no grounds why this Government should continue with this gagging clause when a very eminent set of lawyers on the Constitution Committee has said, in words of one syllable, that this is a breach of Article 10 of the ECHR. I will not go back over the ground about the statement of compliance—the issue is clear cut. It is that we remove this gagging clause, which is an impediment to free speech.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment that we are discussing, which would remove Clause 4(1)(b), and will speak also to the clause stand part issue that is grouped with it. I declare that I am a member of the Constitution Committee, about which the noble Lord was so complimentary a moment ago. I have also had a long involvement with Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel, and I understand where the pressure for legislation of this kind is coming from, and the concerns that have given rise to it, including some very aggressive campaigns that have occasionally veered towards anti-Semitism and contributed to a real sense of insecurity, leading to a demand for legislation of this kind.
When consideration was being given to a ban on boycotts, I do not think that anybody expected that this was going to include the sort of provisions that we are debating now—provisions to prevent people talking about a situation that has given rise to something as significant as a potential ban on boycotts. That is what this part of the Bill does—this prohibition of statements
“indicating (in whatever terms) … that the person intends to act in a way that would contravene section 1, or … that the person would intend to act in such a way were it lawful to do so”.
That really is the most preposterous set of words I have come across in any piece of legislation that I have looked at in my entire time in either House of Parliament. It is quite extraordinary and preposterous.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I shall follow the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, who quoted from the Government’s Explanatory Notes. This is the House of Lords wording in the Explanatory Notes: it was supposedly toughened up following discussion in the Public Bill Committee in the House of Commons. So we have this explanation in front of us and I shall just quote again what the noble Lord, Lord Beith, quoted, which is that
“councillors of a local authority are not a public authority and, therefore, are not prohibited from expressing support for or”—
my emphasis—
“voting in favour of a motion supporting a boycott”.
Can the Minister give us an assurance? If councillors vote for a boycott, which they are entitled to do, according to the Explanatory Notes, and if that boycott motion is passed, enforcement action is taken and ultimately a civil penalty can be levied, is there any prospect whatever of those councillors who voted for the boycott motion being surcharged? Because the prospect of that must clearly be a limitation on their ability to speak.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, as a Conservative, I believe absolutely in the right to freedom of speech, but I do not think that the limits on freedom of speech in Clause 4 are as great as some noble Lords have tried to make out. I do not think that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights is something that affects the rights of individuals, and Clause 4 is fundamentally aimed at public authorities. I completely understand that there is a very small number of public authorities who can be individuals as well, but, as my noble friend the Minister explained at Second Reading and as the Explanatory Notes make very clear, the prohibition on statements is against public authorities and attaches to individuals only to the extent that they are speaking for the public authority. Even if it applies to the statements made by individuals on behalf of the public authority, the ban applies to the public authority and the enforcement action is taken against the public authority. So individuals are not targeted by Clause 4.
We have to remember that this is not an academic issue. We already know that councils are starting to pass BDS motions and they are against this Bill. We know that the student encampments are including demands or public statements on the conflict in the Middle East and on divestment. They may not get all their demands, but that is certainly where they are pushing towards. Without the Bill, I think we can be fairly sure that BDS activities and statements will continue to increase and that will have an impact on social cohesion, and a particular impact on the Jewish communities that are affected by the sorts of statements that are made.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
The noble Baroness said that she is afraid that BDS statements will increase. Is she in favour of preventing such statements in unavoidably lively public debate?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
Yes, I am against statements being made by public authorities. I am trying to make the distinction at the moment between public authorities and the individuals who are involved in those public authorities, who I think are hardly affected by this, except to the extent that they speak for the public authority. I think there is a case for taking a position against statements by public authorities, because of the impact on social cohesion.
We have to remember that this provision does not come from nowhere: it is rooted in the real, live example of what happened in Leicester Council back in 2014. It passed a BDS motion and then said, “only as far as legal considerations allow”. At that time, that was hugely divisive in the local community. It does cause very real harm and that is why this is so different from the kind of example that the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, gave at the beginning, about wanting to make a statement about stealing my noble friend’s excellent handbag. This is about social cohesion, at the end of the day; that is why this provision is in here.
Lord Warner (CB)
I have listened with interest to the noble Baroness. Can she explain why the rather talented and experienced Constitution Committee took a totally different view from her and was so concerned about Clause 4? Why is she saying that, in effect, it has got this wrong—that it should not be saying that Clause 4 should be removed from the Bill but should welcome it as delivering the requirements of the Bill? I am rather puzzled.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I have never been a member of the Constitution Committee—I am certainly not a current member—so I simply cannot answer that question. I do not know why it has reached the conclusions that it has, but I believe that they are not in accordance with the impact of Clause 4 as drafted.
When dealing with stopping people doing things and making judgments about whether doing so is right, a balance always needs to be struck. In this case, the Government have tilted the scales in favour of social cohesion. People may think that that is the wrong decision and that allowing elected officials to speak on behalf of an authority in the way that they want to is a price worth paying. I believe that, because of the limited nature of Clause 4 as drafted, it strikes the right sort of balance in this case.
We must remember that this Bill does not stop elected officials speaking in their own capacity, nor does it stop bishops doing so—not that that would ever be an easy thing to do. Individuals in public life can have a big impact on social cohesion, but they are not debarred by this Bill from giving their own views on BDS activities, even though they would have such an impact. In that sense, this Bill is a modest change to the status quo on public statements. It is certainly not as far reaching as people have tried to make out. I would like to get a little balance in this debate.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness asserted that Clause 4 does not apply to individuals but only to entities. Clause 4 says:
“A person who is subject to section 1 must not publish”,
and so on. In law, a “person” could be a corporation or an individual, but Clause 1 is quite clear in referring to a “decision-maker”, which can clearly be an individual. One can easily visualise a public entity where the decision is made by one person who has had authority delegated to them, a committee or group of people who have the power to make such a decision or the full council, body or whatever it may be. Clearly, Clause 4 is capable of being directed at individuals.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I hear what the noble Lord is saying. Clause 1 affects persons who are decision-makers. Decision-makers are defined in Clause 2, which uses the definition of public authority. As I said earlier, there are a very small number of cases where individuals can be decision-makers. It is not a question of people taking delegated authority to be decision-makers; if I were in a council and delegated to the chief executive, they would not thereby become the decision-maker. The decision-maker remains the public authority under the terms of Clause 2.
Lord Warner (CB)
I refer the noble Baroness to Clause 1(7)(b), not just Clause 1(7)(a), which says
“any person seeking to persuade the decision-maker to act in a certain way”.
That sounds to me rather like an individual.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
Indeed, but a person who is subject to Clause 1 is a decision-maker. The noble Lord has just referred to the person giving advice or the person seeking to persuade the decision-maker, but that person is not a decision-maker for the purposes of Clause 1, and therefore not for the purposes of Clause 4.
Lord Warner (CB)
With all due respect, Clause 4 applies to Clause 1(7)(b), which refers to an individual. We must perhaps ask the Minister to advise us on whether that is true.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
We discussed this very point on our first day in Committee, and I think I have stated the correct position on the interpretation of the Bill.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, to answer some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the idea that individuals are not targeted is certainly not sufficiently reassuring to make local decision-makers feel protected. Most of what is in the Bill seems to be very much targeted at local authorities and their members.
It is perhaps worth while to point out here, in this unelected Chamber, that councils are directly elected and are accountable to their electorate. They are also obliged to report back to their constituents about such things as decisions that they have made. I was a former leader of a council, and I would have wondered, on seeing this Bill, having been asked why I had made a certain decision, whether replying in a certain way would mean that I was prosecuted, or perhaps that I was not able to reply because I am forbidden to speak about this. There is sufficient lack of clarity in the Bill to make people wonder about that. I do not think that it has been demonstrated otherwise. As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, the Constitution Committee sees this as a major threat to free speech. We need some more guidance on this.
I take exception to the idea that, somehow, statements from student encampments are equated with statements issued by locally elected authorities and their officials. They are not the same at all. Local authorities have a constitutional role, and they should be respected as such. The contempt that I have heard from some people in this Committee is unwarranted, given the lack of evidence of councils making such decisions as are prohibited in the Bill.
The idea that prohibiting such statements will have a good effect on social cohesion is much more likely to have the opposite effect. If people are told that they are not allowed to make statements, they are much more likely to try to find other ways of getting their messages across. The idea of oppression leading to better social cohesion seems to me to be a false premise.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, that there is a complete failure by many of us in this Chamber to explain why Clause 4 is necessary. We have not really heard any good reason, other than the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, telling us it is for social cohesion.
On the idea that freedom of speech is offended by Clause 4, as the right reverend Prelate said, freedom of speech is a basic right and a cornerstone of democracy. Although we are an unelected House, we fight for democracy—I would hope—and stand by democratic principles, as has the Constitution Committee, as told to us by the noble Lords, Lord Beith and Lord Warner.
The practical issues with the Bill, as to how its provisions are actually enforced, is again something that needs clarity. As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said at the beginning, we are discovering with the Bill that, the further we go with it, it really lacks clarity. Trying to establish what it is meant to do and how it is meant to do it seems to have defeated us so far.
We need much better clarification about the Human Rights Act. If the Constitution Committee of this House tells us that the Bill contravenes Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, we need to know how it is that Ministers are telling us that it is somehow compliant, as this is clearly not the case.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said, to prevent people talking about issues important enough for them to be calling for a boycott is an outrage. The Explanatory Notes trying to maintain that somehow individual councillors will not be targeted or held responsible is totally inadequate if that is not going to be on the face of the Bill.
The clause deserves to be removed. I very much regret that it disrespects the role and responsibility of directly elected councillors and their officials. It has extreme overreach in trying to gag them and prevent them explaining their decisions, for which they are publicly accountable. I believe that contraventions of the ECHR are matters to be taken very seriously, so I want to hear from the Minister further explanation and further response to the recommendations of the Constitution Committee.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 33 to remove Clause 4(1)(b), moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, to remove Clause 4, undermine the aims of the Bill.
Before I address the amendments, I reiterate that the Government are committed to protecting freedom of speech, which is why the Bill’s provisions apply only to public authorities and not to individuals or companies in their private capacities. I made that clear in my response to the Constitution Committee report in March and set out why the clause is necessary to fulfil the 2019 manifesto commitment.
I also clarify to the noble Baroness that we are not creating any new criminal offences in the Bill for statements about boycotts or handbags or any other kinds of statements. Moreover, statements about one wanting to steal someone’s handbag would clearly not have an impact on community cohesion in the way that statements of intent to boycott may. Statements of intent to boycott can be threatening and intimidating, particularly for those within the Jewish community.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, we are not talking about a statement of intent to boycott; we are talking about a statement that you would have done something but you do not intend to do it. That is the point that we are trying to make.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think that it is necessary to make these points within the framework of the Bill.
I will move on and explain Clause 4, which, in its entirety, is an instrumental part of the Bill. It prohibits public bodies from publishing statements indicating that they intend to engage in activity prohibited by the Bill. That includes statements indicating that the public body would have acted differently if the legislation had not been in place.
I will deal directly with some points that I feel are misconceptions. The clause will not affect the statements of individuals, unless they are speaking as or on behalf of a public authority. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, is not speaking for a public authority in her colourful example; I assure her that she would not be in breach of the ban if she were making a statement of intent to boycott. Even when an individual is speaking on behalf of a public authority, the ban applies only to the public authority itself and there is no personal liability for the individual. Thos includes councillors, to answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. For that reason, I reiterate—
Lord Warner (CB)
I am very sorry, but I must ask the Minister to address the question about Clause 1(7)(b). If she reads that clause, she will see that it could cover any individual who seeks to influence a decision-maker. That could include, in my interpretation, a journalist writing a campaign statement in a newspaper, asking whichever council it is to take action.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I will come on to decision-makers.
I reiterate that it is important that the Bill does not breach Article 10 of the ECHR on the right to freedom of speech, and I have already reiterated the Government’s support for free speech. The reason the Bill is compatible with the ECHR is that public authorities do not enjoy human rights, as the purpose of the convention is to protect individuals from undue interference by the state, of which public authorities form a part.
I gave a full reply to the committee in my letter of 15 March, and we have already added extra provisions to the Explanatory Notes, some quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, to make it clear how the sorts of concerns expressed this evening may be mistaken. He provided an example where a local authority debated a motion to boycott that was ultimately not passed, and asked whether the public authority would be in breach of the ban if it explained that the reason it did not support the motion is that it would be illegal under the Bill. In this scenario, it is the individual councillors who said that this is the reason they did not support the motion in the vote. The public authority has not adopted the motion. Its statement merely summarises the individual councillors’ reasoning. It is therefore not an expression of the public authority’s intention to boycott. Even in the case where the councillor was speaking on behalf of that public authority, such a statement would be in breach of the Bill only if it clearly indicated that the public authority intended to engage in a boycott in the exercise of its public functions or would engage in such a boycott if that were lawful.
Lord Beith (LD)
As I say, it is the leader of the council who is being questioned as to why the council did not, in the event, agree to a boycott, although there were speeches in the chamber and maybe some votes cast supporting a boycott. What is he able to say that does not fall foul of the legislation as currently drafted? If he says, “The reason we are not going ahead with this is that it is against the law, and this council does not do things that are against the law”, is that not in breach?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The principle is that the person seeking to influence would not be caught by the Bill. The provision is to deal with a situation in which a public authority boycotts because of pressure from someone else, rather than its own disapproval of a foreign state.
Lord Beith (LD)
I apologise, but I think the Minister is trying to answer at the same time the points that I and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, made. His point was about the category of people referred to in Clause 1(7), I think. I am talking about a situation, directly following the example that I gave and she has used, in which the leader of the council seeks to explain why the council is not doing what at least some people were recorded as having said that it should do during the debate, saying, “No, we’re not going to do that because this council does not do things that are against the law”.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I will take the noble Lord’s example away. I have given him a clear statement and he makes a reasonable point. I think there is an answer to it, but I will not just make it up; I want to give him a clear answer on that. Perhaps I can move on and deal with one or two other concerns.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
I am sorry to delay things yet further. We have had a lot of discussion about theoretical examples of what might happen. I tried to give your Lordships’ Committee a particular example of a case against the then Mayor of London. It was a notorious case and it took months in the courts to decide whether he was acting as a public authority or in his private capacity. Therefore, how can the Minister seem to think it so simple to decide when somebody is acting in a private capacity and when they are acting as a public authority, given that the one case that really got the public attention spent months in the courts before it was eventually determined that on that occasion he had been acting in a private capacity? I am sure that everybody can remember the case.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am afraid that I am not familiar with that case, but I take the right reverend Prelate’s point. The way I have described this shows that in fact this is limited in intent; free speech is possible in a personal capacity. I will come on to say a little more about that and about decision-makers, because I know that we need to clear up those points and I am conscious of time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, highlighted that Ministers in the Scottish Government would be captured by this provision. As I have explained, as Ministers in the Scottish Government are public authorities for the purpose of human rights, they do not have ECHR protections in their public functions. It is clearly right that this provision should apply to Scottish Ministers to ensure that communities in Scotland are protected from these divisive statements, and foreign policy is a reserved matter. Additionally, Clause 1 applies only in relation to procurement and investment decisions in the exercise of public functions. Therefore, Clause 4 would not apply to statements made by Scottish Ministers about how they tend to act in their private lives.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Can we be absolutely crystal clear on this? The Government are arguing that a Minister in Scotland, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, or the First Ministers of Wales or Northern Ireland could not legally make a statement saying, on behalf of the public authorities they are elected to lead, that they do not intend to break the law because they do not break the law. Clause 4 would prevent them doing that.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am not sure that is right. I will seek advice.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
It may be important, and therefore it is all the more important that the noble Baroness’s question is answered fully and accurately. I have made it clear in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, that as only public authorities are subject to Clause 1, Clause 4 is strictly limited to the actions of public authorities and therefore not individuals associated with public authorities.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
As chair of the Constitution Committee, I should say that the answer from the Government went on to say that declarations could be as harmful as the boycotts themselves, and that was deployed in defence. It is quite right to clarify the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, on what constitutes a declaration that does or does not fall under the qualification in paragraph 6 of the Minister’s reply to the Constitution Committee. I do not seek to express a view; I am just saying that there is that undefined element.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I note the point that the noble Baroness has made. We did reply to the Constitution Committee, but I will reflect further on this point.
My noble friend Lady Noakes said that there had been some confusion due to the use of the term “person”, which I have already referred to. To respond to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, in the context of this clause, the legal term “person” refers only to a person subject to this Bill’s ban. In other words, it refers only to a public authority as defined in Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The legal term “person” does not have the same meaning as in normal English. This is standard legal drafting.
Additionally, for the purposes of this Bill, decision-makers are public authorities—as explained by my noble friend Lady Noakes and confirmed in Clause 2(1) of the Bill, which I have just referred to. Public authorities will delegate decision-making to individuals, but individuals’ decisions or statements are captured only when they are made on behalf of the public authority. This issue was also discussed in Committee in the other place. It was because we listened to the concerns raised on this point that we revised paragraphs 32 and 33 of the Explanatory Notes. Paragraph 32 states:
“As only public authorities are subject to clause 1, this clause is strictly limited to the actions of public authorities”
and therefore not individuals associated with public authorities. I think that goes three-quarters of the way to answering the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, but I will follow up.
I hope that makes it clear that this Bill is not an assault or restriction on the principle of free speech. Rather, it aims to ensure that the UK speaks with one voice internationally. Public authorities should not be pursuing their own foreign policy agenda or publishing statements on foreign policy. It distracts from their core duties. Clause 4 will support those bodies to remain focused on that purpose. It is a core part of the Bill and meets the manifesto commitment to ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycott, divestment or sanctions campaigns against countries and territories.
Briefly to address Amendment 33, and the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, I remind the Committee of just how divisive of community cohesion within the United Kingdom declarations of intent to boycott can be. That includes statements made by public authorities that indicate that they would intend to participate in boycotts and divestments if it were legal to do so. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who I am very glad has joined our discussions, will have noted what I said about elected officials, including councillors, expressing a view which is not related to the narrow purpose of this Bill. He asked for an example of our concern. We saw a good example in Leicester, which my noble friend Lady Noakes referred to. In its resolution in 2014, Leicester City Council passed a motion targeting the activity of the Israeli state with a boycott
“insofar as legal considerations allow”.
The motion was widely condemned by Jewish groups and was extremely divisive. This demonstrates the need to ban statements of intent to boycott or divest which express—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we need to be very careful about how we talk about social cohesion at present. As it happens, I spent some time last weekend in Saltaire, which is part of the Bradford local authority, talking with one of Yorkshire’s Christian leaders and one of Yorkshire’s Muslim leaders about how we maintain social cohesion and interfaith co-operation under the current circumstances. It is not easy. These are two people whom I like and trust, and they are very good friends. We have to recognise the impact of the ongoing war, and in particular the response of our younger generation—white and Christian, and south Asian and Muslim—in all their diversity. It is very delicate at present, and simply asserting that stopping debate is a way to maintain social cohesion is not the answer.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
As the noble Lord knows, the Bill aims to improve the situation with social cohesion. I note what he said, but we have seen examples of councils, such as Islington, passing motions in opposition to the Bill alongside foreign policy statements about Israel and other countries. While this might not be a breach of the ban, it demonstrates a strong interest in public authorities engaging in BDS campaigns. It could demonstrate that the Bill is already be having its intended effect of preventing public authorities making divisive statements.
The point is that, overall, Clause 4 supports the main aims of the Bill in ensuring that the UK speaks with one voice internationally and has one foreign policy agenda, and that public bodies do not introduce policies in that area that risk dividing communities at this difficult time. Accordingly, for this evening, I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a helpful debate, if somewhat frustrating at times. I do not think that it is good enough to be reminded of social cohesion as a way of trying to entice us into supporting this measure. We all want to work hard to improve social cohesion where there are issues, and I know that the Minister would accept that that is our intention too.
There are fundamental problems with this clause. The Minister herself has said that she is unable to answer some quite basic questions that we have asked, and not for the first time this evening—we have asked these questions before. We have used different examples to try to tease out the answers, but the principal question is the same: who will be subject to this measure and what might the effect of that be? We still do not know the answer to that.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
With respect to the noble Baroness, I have answered the large majority of the questions, but I said that I would take away the underlying question that she is enunciating.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I acknowledge that the Minister has done her best to answer the position this evening. But I remember a meeting that we had before Second Reading and asking her about this example of a council leader, which we heard again tonight put very well by the noble Lord, Lord Beith—I think the Explanatory Notes had been amended at that point. We still do not know the answer to that. The officials who were with her said that they would take it away and come back with an answer, but there has been no answer tonight. The Minister will understand our frustration a little.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—what a soldier. She shows up and does this for the Government, night after night, but, my goodness, how unpersuasive she was—she is normally very persuasive and I can normally see where she is coming from. She is doing sterling work, I am sure, but she has not provided us with the answers that we need. Saying that this is about social cohesion will not wash.
Should the Bill pass, should this clause be included, social cohesion could be damaged. What social cohesion needs is communication, open expression of where people are coming from, and relationships of trust to be built up. You cannot build relationships of trust among community leaders, whether they are councillors, leaders of combined authorities or Ministers in devolved Administrations, if they feel, and are said to feel, unable to express their true positions. That is not a situation we should be content to tolerate in this country.
It would be helpful if the Minister could commit to writing to noble Lords about the issues concerning councillors; but they apply to other elected officials too, as we have discussed. If we could have that letter before Report, that would be incredibly helpful.
I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.