Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I am looking at the time. I am happy to continue this conversation elsewhere, but I will say this: I would be happy if Clause 3(7) encompassed not only Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories but the Palestinian Authority, because I do not want anybody using divestment or boycotts as a lever in the Middle East. We should all be working for peace, and we do not work for peace through BDS. I hope that the Opposition will reconsider their position but, in the meantime and with apologies to the House for overstaying my welcome a little, I support the Bill as drafted and therefore oppose the noble Lord’s amendment.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I support the remarks of my noble friends Lady Noakes, Lord Leigh and Lord Wolfson. This amendment would be deleterious to the Palestinians themselves. I cite the example of SodaStream, which had to close down its factory in the Occupied Territories at a loss of 600 Palestinian jobs because of the BDS movement; it was a particular factor. I shall quote two people who worked there. Ali Jafar, a shift manager from a West Bank village, said:

“All the people who wanted to close”


it

“are mistaken … They didn’t take into consideration the families”.

Anas Abdul Wadud Ghayth, who had worked there for four years, said, as he wiped tears:

“We were one family. I am sad because I am leaving my friends who have worked here for a long time”.


I am not in favour of settlements. I certainly believe that Israel has offered many times, and would offer again, to get out of territory that is currently occupied in exchange for a genuine peace deal. It has tried and would try again. Currently, there is perhaps a different mindset among those leading the country, but that is not necessarily permanent. At the moment, these territories are part of Israel. They are not necessarily permanently part of Israel, and I believe that they would ultimately be given up or exchanged in return for a genuine peace deal.

Currently, however, it is occupying them and providing jobs for Palestinian people who want them and could not find gainful employment otherwise. That was confirmed when, for example, the SodaStream factory shut down. From a security perspective, if Israel were to give back to the Golan Heights, it would be signing its own death warrant. You will know that if you have been to that area and seen what is there. Equally, with the Occupied Territories on the West Bank, I believe there is potential for a two-state solution that recognises both sides’ right to exist, but Israel needs a partner that is willing to recognise its own right to exist. This Bill is designed to protect, in the meantime, both Israel and the jobs being created in those territories.

However, like my noble friends, I have the most enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who I think genuinely wants to find a way to work through this and a wording that will let us deal with this issue in a way that is acceptable to all sides. I have no problem with that, and I hope we might have some meeting of minds, through which we can move forwards and try to achieve the aims of the Bill without offending noble Lords, on all sides. I have enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Warner, as well, who I have worked with in the past. Whether or not we agree on this issue, I hope that noble Lords can see the points I am trying to make about the things I believe the Government are trying to achieve.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness paints a very rosy picture of the West Bank. From all my experience of being there, it is totally unlike what she is describing. There may be some factories employing Palestinians that have been closed down, but thousands of Palestinians have lost their livelihoods as a result of the settlements and the Israel Defense Forces promoting violence, and certainly allowing violence, by settlers against ordinary Palestinian farmers, who have lost their olive orchards and the land where they were growing grapes. I just do not believe she can have spoken to many representatives of Palestinian people, who are utterly miserable as a result of the Israeli occupation. To say that it is part of Israel—that is simply, legally, not the case.

Lastly, I want to challenge the noble Baroness on the suggestion that the Israeli Government are in favour of a two-state solution—on the contrary. The noble Baroness said just now that she is in favour of a two-state solution, as are many other people, and that she believes it will happen. If it is to happen, there has to be a complete change in tone and views by the Israeli Government. Successive Israeli Governments have done nothing to promote a two-state solution. On the contrary, they have done many things to make it impossible, through the constant building of settlements. It is not that they happened a long time ago; they continue to be built all the time.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

May I, with all due respect, clarify a few points for the noble Baroness? First, I understand that the current Israeli Government are not in favour, and I have said myself that I am not in favour of the settlements. I am in favour of a two-state solution, and always have been. Past Israeli Governments have offered a two-state solution and offered an exchange of land for peace time and again. I am not sure why the noble Baroness is shaking her head. Israel withdrew from Gaza itself without even an offer of peace from the other side, and this is where we have ended up.

I have great respect for the noble Baroness, and one can always hear two sides to any argument, but there are a large number of Palestinians who welcome the employment they have in those territories. There are others who may have a different view, but in the end, the only solution, as far as I am concerned, must be a two-state solution. The noble Baroness is ignoring the fact that the other side, whether it is the Palestinian Authority or Hamas, is intent on wiping Israel off the map. It is not interested in a two-state solution. Israel would offer, and has offered, a two-state solution. As I say, I have spoken to people on both sides, and I hope the noble Baroness might be able to meet some of the others I have met, who have a different view, clearly, from the ones she has spoken to.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, I am sure she will agree with me that violence by settlers or Palestinians has to be condemned without reservation, and the full force of the law used against such perpetrators.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

I completely agree. I do not agree with the settlements, and I do not agree with the actions of the settlers. But that does not in any way change the situation we are dealing with here, which is that until there is a two-state solution, some partnership for peace and some agreement, the idea of boycotting, whether the Occupied Territories or Israel, will do damage both to Israel and to the Palestinians who are gainfully employed there. That is the point I was trying to make, not to defend the settlers or settlements.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, third time of asking. First, I stand here as somebody who still mourns the death, the assassination, of Yitzhak Rabin, a great statesperson who was on the cusp of finding a solution that has evaded many people. I also mourn the loss of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. I was a great student of his; he taught me Hebrew and how to read the Hebrew scriptures. Also, before he died, he planted nine trees in Israel for me, so I have a little plot of land where those nine trees are.

What would he say about Clause 3(7)? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay; I am not sure that it is wisdom that, unfortunately, has included Israel in the clause. I know it is differentiated, as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, has told us; we then have in paragraphs (b) and (c) the Occupied Territories and the Occupied Golan Heights. I just wonder what it is that is being asked of us. Legislation, at the heart of it, is a statement of public policy. What public policy are we doing with subsection (7)? What are we saying? I have never believed that you can use statute as a way to give assurance, because when the law is passed, it is already dated, so it may never actually deliver what you want. I am not so sure that these three paragraphs are a wonderful opportunity; is there not a better way of saying what you want?

I totally agree that, as the noble Lord reminded us, this differentiation is made because Israel comes up more than any other country in the world. What is it that drives that? Of course, being a Christian, I cannot say, but given the Second World War and the Holocaust, you have to have a heart that tells you, “Be very careful that you do not tread on holy ground”.

I am reminded of another great name who influenced me greatly on issues such as this: Rabbi Hugo Gryn, who was asked by a child on the radio, “Where was God in the Holocaust? Why wasn’t he there? Why didn’t he defend them?” Like all good rabbis who know the Torah, he gave the most beautiful answer: “In Auschwitz, God was being blasphemed and violated. The real question is, where was humanity, made in God’s image and likeness?” The question is, will our humanity find itself better in this subsection (7)? I am very doubtful, the way it is drafted, because it conflates two pieces of land, and I am not sure that is a very wise thing.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Let me start by making it clear, if it is necessary, that the Opposition do not support BDS—we made that clear at Second Reading—so my contribution tonight on this group of amendments is about the environment and the exceptions to it. Of course, currently the Bill does not prevent a decision-maker taking environmental misconduct into account. Environmental misconduct is defined as

“conduct that … amounts to an offence”

that causes

“significant harm to the environment”.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said in introducing her amendment, this is quite a narrow exemption. It relies on UK decision-makers being able to be confident as to whether an environmental practice constitutes an offence in the UK or another country. There is no mention of climate change or the need to invest and to make procurement decisions proactively to protect the environment. Unfortunately, my noble friend Lord Dubs, who I know was very keen to address this point, cannot be with us.

Amendment 32C would provide that the Bill does not prevent a decision-maker taking into account the climate crisis and the need to achieve the Paris agreement goal or other climate change goals when making decisions. The Paris agreement goal is to hold the increase in the average global temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, which is a critical threshold. The amendment mirrors the language that is already in statute in the Pensions Schemes Act 2021. The Government included climate change provisions in that Act to require, as the Minister said at the time,

“occupational pension scheme trustees and managers to secure effective governance on the effect of climate change on the scheme”.—[Official Report, 26/2/20; col. GC 156.]

During the debates on those matters, Members of this House spoke of the need for pension schemes not only to consider the financial risks of climate change but to play an active part in combating climate change and achieving the shared international goals, so it is a proactive approach.

One of the fundamental problems we have constantly been addressing in this Bill is whether people will be too cautious: will the Bill have a chilling effect on investment and procurement decisions that we proactively want people to take? We have, on the one hand, legislation that requires pension scheme managers to consider the financial implications of climate change and the transition to a low carbon economy; on the other hand, we have this Bill, which makes no mention of climate change and which, through overly broad drafting, risks limiting what public bodies and local government pension schemes are able to take into account when making decisions.

Sadly, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, is not in his place. What we have to be clear about is the unintended consequences of this legislation. We have to be careful about where it could lead, because future Governments may not be so proactive in supporting efforts on climate change. We have to be careful because this legislation, which empowers the Secretary of State, could be incredibly dangerous.

The Local Government Association has raised questions about how this Bill sits with local government’s existing procurement practices and its ability to take environmental, social and governance issues into account. I hope the Minister will agree that combating climate change, including considering a country’s environmental policies, conduct and record, should be a crucial part of decision-making on public procurement.

In her introduction, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, also raised the key issue of the ability of public bodies to be free to avoid investment in fossil fuels. That is a critical area, as extraction of coal and other fossil fuels is often part of government strategy and often controlled by Governments. Could this Bill be interpreted in a way that will stop those sorts of proactive, positive investments that the Government, the Opposition and most people in this country think are right? That is the problem I hope the Minister will be able to address. Fossil fuels are a controversial issue that people have taken very polarised views about; we need to be clear about the consequences of this legislation.

I did not see this group of amendments as being about BDS, but about how we support positive policies on the environment and how the Government intend to ensure that this legislation does not have a chilling effect on the very things they seek public authorities and public bodies to do. I hope the noble Lord will be able to address these specific points.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, may I make a brief intervention? I did not realise that Back Benchers were not continuing to debate, so please forgive me. I have a brief point on this group of amendments and, in particular, the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on his Amendment 15. I have enormous respect and admiration for the noble Lord, but I suggest that this debate, in a way, encapsulates why it is important to consider the Bill very carefully. It also suggests the one- sided and sometimes very difficult debate that surrounds Israel and the BDS question.

For example, the noble Lord described the environmental damage involved in taking away olive trees from Palestinian land as some kind of environmental crime, but historically one of the big criticisms of Israel has been that it uses forestation projects to push Palestinians off their land, so the environmental issue can be argued in different ways for different purposes. Israel has planted over 200 million trees since it was founded, so it does take care of the environment.

On some of the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, was using, one might suggest that one wants to boycott Israel or protect the environment in the opposite way from that which is often argued, and the double standards that have been applied to this debate. I urge my noble friend the Minister carefully to consider the unintended consequences of well-meaning environmental protection. I am, of course, very keen to protect the environment and support the comments made so excellently by my noble friend about the detail of Amendment 15. I thank noble Lords for their indulgence in allowing me to make these points.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, before I address this group of amendments, I reassure noble Lords that the intention of the Bill is not to interfere with the ability of public authorities to campaign on environmental issues. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, the Bill is well defined on this issue. It already makes an exception for environmental misconduct, including where this has been facilitated by a foreign state or as a result of the laws or policy of a state failing to prevent it.

In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, environmental misconduct includes conduct that caused, or had the potential to cause, significant harm to the environment and amounts to an offence under the law of the United Kingdom or any other country or territory. This is in line with the exception in the Procurement Act 2023. The Bill therefore already exempts considerations related to a range of environmental offences.

I begin by addressing Amendment 15, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hain. This amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot remove environmental misconduct as an exception to the Schedule by regulations. In response to the first of the noble Lord’s points, the Bill does not stop campaigns on general environmental issues such as fossil fuels or biodiversity. This includes where they lead incidentally to not procuring from or investing in a number of countries. I hope that this also answers the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins.

Environmental campaigns will be captured by the Bill only if they single out a country in a way that is influenced by disapproval of foreign state conduct. General campaigns that do not single out a specific country or territory would not be captured. However, the Bill must not leave a loophole for public authorities to take a general position on an issue mainly with the intention to target a particular state. For example, a public authority might shape a general position on an issue with the intention that it results in a boycott of Israel. The Bill should rightly stop that. If a case is flagged to enforcement authorities, they will assess the evidence of whether a public authority’s procurement or investment decision was based on a non-country-specific campaign with the intention of targeting a particular state. Enforcement authorities will have the power to ask for a range of information before making a decision.

To repeat some of the comments made by my noble friend the Minister in the previous group, I reassure noble Lords that the power in Clause 3 cannot be used to remove any exception to the ban in the Bill as passed by Parliament. This includes the exception to the ban for environmental misconduct in the Schedule. To go further, in answer to the final question of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, the limitation in Clause 3(7), which refers to

“Israel … the Occupied Palestinian Territories, or … the Occupied Golan Heights”,

does not mean that the exceptions in the Schedule cannot be used in relation to suppliers and companies with connections to Israel or the Occupied Territories. All that limitation does is restrict the power of the Secretary of State to use regulations to add further exceptions to the Bill if those regulations would have the result of removing Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the occupied Golan Heights from the scope of the Bill. I am also grateful for my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar’s comments on this, which were helpful in explaining our position.

Amendments 32A and 32B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would broaden the range of considerations relating to the environment that are exempted from the ban. The Bill already allows public authorities to make territorial considerations that are influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct when assessing complicity in conduct that causes, or has the potential to cause, significant harm to the environment. Lowering this threshold would allow public authorities too broad a discretion to engage in the behaviour this ban aims to prohibit. These amendments would allow public authorities to boycott countries that have reduced the level of environmental protection in a country. Governments across the world frequently adjust their environmental targets. It would not be proportionate to allow an entire country to be boycotted for this reason.

An example of where the exception as drafted in the Bill may be relevant is if a prospective supplier has, or may have, engaged in environmental misconduct due to inadequate environmental protection laws in a state. The existing exception has been drafted to accord with offences under UK law, including under the Environment Act 2021. In answer to the noble Baroness’s question, I reiterate that the Bill does not apply to campaigns that do not target countries or territories specifically, including campaigns against fossil fuels or for other environmental causes. The Bill will in no way prevent public authorities setting their own environmental standards as part of their procurement or investment strategies. The Bill defines “environmental misconduct” as conduct that is an offence

“under the law 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”.

House of Lords (Peerage Nominations) Bill [HL]

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 18th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I commend my noble friend Lord Norton and wholeheartedly support the Bill. I do not have the same background as the noble Lord, Lord Russell. My parents did not know Lloyd George. Neither of them was born in this country. They were both born in Europe during the rise of the Nazi party. I feel extremely privileged and proud to stand here today.

We are often too defensive about our legitimacy as an unelected Chamber. If we were an elected Chamber, our role would be critically, even terminally, diminished. If we feel unable to reject government legislation because of party direction, what is the point of the scrutiny? We do not have ultimate power to stop legislation. We can amend, recommend, and reconsider. Perhaps we must make a stronger public case for the importance of what we do.

However, given my background, I feel that the checks and balances provided by this Chamber, which would be enhanced and protected by this Bill, are really important. Indeed, several pieces of legislation have recently sought to gather unprecedented, untrammelled Henry VIII powers to a Prime Minister and an Executive who are asking Parliament to approve carte blanche for any measure to be enacted, however damaging it could be. It is only this House that has held such legislation up, once it has sailed through the elected Chamber with a massive majority and almost no scrutiny. The House of Lords has been a bulwark against the possible trend to dictatorship and is part of our vital constitutional checks and balances, protecting our parliamentary democracy.

It has become clear that giving unregulated and unlimited prime ministerial patronage power, to put his or her favoured people in the Lords, is proving problematic. Surely very few would disagree, especially when the Prime Minister can put as many people as he likes in this House, and ultimately force through legislation as has happened in the Commons.

The Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, giving the House of Lords Appointments Commission power to prevent this, is important, to protect the reputation of the House of Lords against any future Prime Minister who might, even deliberately, bring this House into disrepute or impose some extreme ideological control on this country’s legislation. With the global trends towards extremism and authoritarianism, we must guard against sliding down the slippery slope. Looking back with regret after the safeguards of our democracy have been dismantled will be too late.

Why would the Government not accept these sensible and modest proposals? For prime ministerial patronage, we already have an honours system, but if patronage of peerages is portrayed as an honour rather than as a public duty or a vital legislative role, the role we fulfil might continue to risk being confusing to the public. Therefore, I do support suggestions that one must think carefully about what resignation honours should entail. The Prime Minister has pledged to restore integrity and professionalism. Government acceptance of this Bill would be a first step to protecting Parliament’s reputation and our democracy. I hope that my noble friend will take the feeling of the House back to her department.

Elections Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 27th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak, but the fact is that, following what we have just heard, the Order Paper for Tuesday and Wednesday next week has Questions down from noble Lords. It is not as though we are slicing off tomorrow: the Order Paper is there, and it is there for a reason. Somebody worked out, in terms of the management of this place, that the House would sit. People put bids in for Questions, and they are sitting there on the Order Paper. The Minister —to whom I pay tribute for the way in which he has dealt with this Bill—did leave a gap open, which is not completely closed.

On what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, we are certainly going to find out what the mettle of the electoral commissioners is made of, as a result of this kind of legislation. This is going to test those individuals—both the officers and the commissioners—in a way that they never contemplated when they applied for or were appointed to their posts.

I do not want to delay the House, but the other day I was reading—and I have not finished it—David Runciman’s How Democracy Ends. I came across this page where he quoted an American political scientist Nancy Bermeo, who had identified six different varieties—David Runciman called them “coups”—of ways in which things get manipulated. These are two of them. I would just like the Minister to explain how this Bill differs from these two examples:

“‘Executive aggrandisement’, when those already in power chip away at democratic institutions without ever overturning them. ‘Strategic election manipulation’, when elections fall short of being free and fair but also fall short of being stolen outright.”


Now where does this Bill differ from those two definitions?

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I was not going to speak in this debate, but, having listened very carefully, I am deeply troubled at the idea that we would not try to see whether we can persuade the Minister and Conservative colleagues in the other place, right-thinking Conservatives, that there is a significant risk here of gerrymandering elections—something one would think was impossible to imagine in this country.

I think the House has been done a great service by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who has challenged us to stand up for what we can see is a significant risk. Indeed, when we think about what happens in the other place with the amendments that we are trying to point out are really important to insert in the Bills that are coming through in these final days, we see that they are not even being sufficiently debated. With a significant majority there is a risk that a Government can try to gather for themselves permanent or long-lasting powers that are not designed for the kinds of constitutional arrangements that we have in this country.

I therefore am finding myself deeply conflicted and troubled as to—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—what we are here for if it is not consider, and ask the other place to consider, these matters.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, briefly, we on these Benches will vote for both amendments on matters of principle, because we believe in constitutional democracy and citizens’ rights. Sadly, throughout our discussions on this Bill, the Minister has resisted attempts to discuss this as a constitutional issue and as a matter of principle. Indeed, as the Bill has gone through the Government have removed this area from the Cabinet Office and put it in with housing and local government under the Department for Levelling Up, so that the Commons committee on constitutional affairs will no longer cover such things as this. I regret that, too; it seems to me entirely improper.

I recall the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, making a very powerful speech some while ago on the importance of process in politics. By “process” I take him to mean the way in which we conduct ourselves in the political world, including the rule of law and institutional checks and balances Those conventions of political life are a fundamental part of democracy. That is what this Bill has failed to reinforce. I think we all recognise that a future Prime Minister or a future Government will have to return to this issue and produce a much better Bill that can command more cross-party support.

The amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, addresses the question of parliamentary sovereignty—not Executive sovereignty. My noble friend Lord Rennard’s amendment addresses the question of the right of every citizen to take part in the political life of the country and not to face unnecessary barriers. One of the many adverse effects of the Bill is that it makes it much easier and without barriers for overseas citizens to vote but more difficult for domestic citizens to vote. That is very odd, not entirely democratic and undesirable.

For those and other reasons, and on matters of constitutional principle, which the revising House should have particular concern for, we will vote for both amendments.

Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Effect of Renegotiation on Other Trade Negotiations

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, no one is speaking of tearing up the Northern Ireland protocol. We have made very clear that our wish is to negotiate a new version of the protocol with a new balance, and to do so consensually. That is not unusual in international relations, and there are plenty of examples that one could give. On the FTA question, look at the facts: we negotiated 60-plus free trade agreements last year before withdrawal; we have a huge programme of negotiations going on; and I am sure that they will come to good and beneficial results.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in any trade negotiation, trust is important and that, having signed agreements, it is important for the UK to maintain that trust? Does he agree that, in almost all cases, the free trade agreements agreed thus far do not require us to remove regulations that we already have? Would it be possible for the UK to commit to a period until, let us say, 2024 or 2025 for maintaining our regulations in order to rebuild trust and work out a solution that can demonstrate the UK’s good faith in trying to identify a new resolution for Northern Ireland?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, as I have said on previous occasions, the question of trust is important and it takes two sides to create trust. As I set out in the speech in Lisbon to which the noble Baroness previously referred, there are a number of things that the EU has done that have not necessarily been conducive to building trust either, but we need to move on from that and generate new momentum to try to reach agreement on a revised protocol. On the question of SPS regulations, the difficulty is that free trade agreements are not the only reason why you might wish to evolve your own agri-food regulations, and indeed the EU has evolved its own autonomously since the start of 2021. Where there is divergence it is for that reason, not because of anything that we have done.

Health and Social Care Levy Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

2nd reading & Order of Commitment discharged & 3rd reading
Monday 11th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

I regret being unable to support this Bill and will try to articulate some of my reasons. There are so many, and I will not detail them all. I associate myself with every word of my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s remarks.

While we debate this Bill, the care sector is marching ever closer to disaster. The measures we are debating—but of course are unable to amend—are nowhere near what is needed to fulfil the 2019 commitment to sort out the social care crisis. No help is guaranteed at all, near-term. The claims that these reforms demonstrate the courage to tackle the difficult issues that other Governments have ducked simply do not stand up to scrutiny. I wish they did, and I wish I could stand here and support a bold initiative to get to grips with a situation that is, frankly, a monumental national and social failure that has already, and will continue to, cost the lives of many vulnerable British citizens.

The challenges of social care are significant. This Bill simply fails to address them. It merely repeats the Dilnot-style measures already legislated for by the Care Act 2014, with a cap that still does not cover all the care costs and still leaves vital funding elements to cash-poor local authorities, which will keep having to ration, reduce or deny care for those in need.

Even the funding promised in this Bill is not ring-fenced to pay for care. It will first prop up the NHS, which already receives the lion’s share of taxpayer money and has itself worsened pressures on social care through the pandemic and proved, yet again, the second-class treatment—for example, by discharging Covid-positive patients, refusing to admit elderly people to hospital and cutting the previous regular visits by GPs to care homes.

This Bill does little or nothing to address so many of the basic fundamental social care sector failings and will still leave ordinary families facing massive costs to subsidise local authorities, which underpay for council-funded residents. There is nothing to address the artificial distinction between free at the point of need NHS care for, for example, cancer, and the hugely expensive social care for, for example, dementia patients.

It does nothing to help reduce staff shortages, which are real and rising right now. In that context, I ask my noble friend to reconsider the proposal for mandatory vaccination. This measure will make the situation worse. There are currently more than 150,000 vacancies in this sector in England. Care staffing shortages have already been compounded by post-Brexit migration rules, as carers from overseas do not reach the new higher income threshold to be eligible to work in the UK. The Government themselves estimate that at least 40,000 CQC-registered care home staff will refuse the vaccine and risk being forced out on 11 November if mandatory vaccination is introduced.

Without staff, how can homes look after people needing care? Many care homes are on the brink of bankruptcy after pandemic costs, with high staff turnover and competition from the NHS and hospitality sectors, as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, just outlined. They do not demand vaccination. Care workers may therefore just move to different or better jobs, but the staff shortages run risks with people’s lives. People have a right to refuse the vaccine. After all, even when vaccinated, they can catch and transmit Covid. I ask my noble friend the Minister to consider the case of a Ms Waite from Preston, who was dismissed from her care home job for gross misconduct for refusing the vaccine, despite having documented medical reasons for doing so.

This Bill will not reduce unmet needs or the financial fragility of care home operators. It will not end the current rationing of care, nor the ongoing reduction of preventive measures. The national economic model of social care relies on councils’ public funding paying below costs of delivery. I am afraid this is simply not a meaningful commitment to social care. It encourages short-term use of this money, supposedly designed to improve social care for the NHS. This obviously needs to be facilitated—reducing the backlog in the NHS is important—but social care underfunding is equally serious for the health and lives of our nation.

I cannot agree that national insurance is an appropriate mechanism for care funding. There will be no contribution from pensioners’ pensions, buy-to-let landlords or capital gains. This hardly spreads the burden widely or fairly across society. It may be rather better than the current costs falling entirely on those who are so frail or unwell that they cannot look after themselves and do not qualify for NHS help until they have used up most of their savings or assets to get public funding, but it will not stop people selling homes to pay for care. Indeed, if domiciliary care takes home value into account, it will increase the numbers of those who need to pay for care by selling their homes, although I do not believe that is an important yardstick in this debate.

This national insurance change is a regressive tax, which breaks a manifesto commitment and penalises the lowest earners and businesses already struggling to recover from the pandemic. Of course, as we emerge from Covid-19 disruptions, additional funding for both NHS and social care is needed, but the care crisis predates this period. Why should businesses pay for this?

I am disappointed to hear some on the Benches opposite turning this into a political issue. This is a social policy issue of the utmost importance, which has been neglected by successive Governments for decades. Worthy words, reviews, royal commissions and more have made recommendations for urgent change, but action on the ground was ducked. Even legislation has lain unimplemented, despite rising need and the financial collapse of major operators. Funding the NHS is still being prioritised over funding social care.

I have a few important questions for my noble friend. How much of the money raised by this levy is guaranteed for social care? Will the Government commit to abandoning their plans for mandatory vaccination for care staff? Can my noble friend give the House the estimated numbers of people requiring care over the coming years, as baby boomers now just starting to enter their 70s reach their 80s and demographic pressures mean a sharp increase in need relative to today’s rather small cohort of more elderly people, with which this country is currently not even coping?

Have the Government considered introducing incentives for families to save for future care needs? I do not mean just insurance but actual savings, a tax incentive for those with pensions, such as tax-free withdrawals to keep money earmarked for their later life, in case they need care, and incentives for people to earmark their ISAs for care—for example, a maximum amount of ISA that could be passed on free of inheritance tax if set aside for care. More than 8 million over-60s hold a total £300 of billion, an average of £35,000 to £40,000 each, in ISAs, and those are 2018 figures which have probably increased since then. These are not necessarily earmarked for any purpose, and before the money is spent on cars, cruises or other goods, introducing an incentive not to spend it could benefit both families and the financial services industry.

As the care cap will start accruing only when needs are substantial, there is nothing to help those with moderate needs, and the cap will cover only local authority-approved rates. Many families will want to have some money to help them before the care cap even starts counting, and as more people have used their pensions or ISAs while relatively young, future taxpayer costs will be higher, because people will have exhausted their savings before they need care and will have no opportunity themselves to help support preventive measures, higher standards of care or care earlier than is otherwise the case.

This is a national policy issue. It is not about politics. I hope that my noble friend responds to cross-party offers of co-operation on this important issue.

Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con) [V]]

My Lords, on the specific question of the number that the noble Baroness asks about, I will have to write to her; I apologise for that. Obviously, the Government hold the principle of transparency as paramount. There are always issues of commercial confidentiality, as all noble Lords will understand. However, we go far beyond the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act in publishing information about the conduct of business within government.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his answers and his assurance that there is not an anti-European element to this, which I wholeheartedly accept. However, does he agree that access to official documents is even more important in times of crisis and that there is a need for openness and transparency in public authorities, partly to restore trust but also to expose or reduce any corruption and make the public feel more confident in their authorities?

[Lord True (Con) [V]]

My Lords, wherever, if ever, corruption exists, it should be mercilessly rooted out and dealt with; I think that would be the united resolve of your Lordships’ House, of the Government and the whole of Parliament. All central government departments are required to publish datasets, including central government contracts, tender opportunities and contract award notices over £10,000, central government spending over £25,000, the gender pay gap data—I will not prolong the list, because other Members wish to ask questions. However, I stress to your Lordships that a great deal of information is voluntarily published by the Government and that we do and will adhere to the law.

Financial Services Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 14th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I should like to speak first to Amendment 26, to which I have added my name, which was so excellently and comprehensively spoken to by my noble friend Lord Leigh. I support its aims and thank the Minister, my noble friend Lord True, who has spent time engaging with us on this matter. I urge the Minister to look carefully at the arguments laid before your Lordships this afternoon so well by my noble friend Lord Leigh.

There perhaps seems to be some confusion in the interpretation of “potential consumer”, because it would appear that in the FCA handbook there is a definition of that term. It gives the impression that potential consumers are covered and can complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service. However, as always, looking a little further along at the so-called small print, those potential customers must already have a relationship with the provider under complaint. In the case that was explained by my noble friend Lord Leigh, a speculative offer of a credit card does not constitute any relationship between, in this case, my noble friend and the consumer credit card company.

Nevertheless, we need to protect the consumer here, and the Financial Ombudsman Service is designed to be able to look into such matters. The aim is not to give redress to someone who did not lose out because they managed to spot the problem but to ensure that redress is available to prevent other consumers falling for the same problem and that action can be taken against a firm in anticipation of future problems that will inevitably arise—because not everybody will be able to spot the problem that my noble friend discovered in advance of any issues arising.

The idea of reporting to Action Fraud sounds, in theory, attractive. However, Action Fraud tends to be an information-gathering service; it cannot introduce any reforms. If one were to say, “I am calling you about something but have not suffered any loss”, it is unlikely, given the number of scams going on and the scale of complaints often received, that the matter would get any further, and certainly not in any timely manner. I therefore hope that my noble friend Lord True might satisfy us with some promises on looking further into this matter and taking it seriously. The Financial Ombudsman Service clearly recognises that it does not have the required powers, and there may well need to be some changes to the FCA handbook or the regulations behind it.

I was very much impressed with the arguments made on two other amendments in this group by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who clearly explained the importance of Amendment 16 on bailiffs treating customers fairly, not being quite as aggressive and having some controls, and Amendment 27 on introducing gambling blockers to help people avoid the terrible problems of losses accrued by gambling and the impact that it has on society. I hope that my noble friend Lord True will listen sympathetically on those issues. Interestingly, they revolve around trying to redress the balance between financial services providers and consumers. All too often, the provider may have more power than the ordinary consumer, who may unwittingly or sometimes innocently be caught up in problems that providers have been too heavy-handed with.

Finally, I should like to speak strongly in support of Amendment 37C, again so excellently and comprehensively explained by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, which addresses an issue that is the opposite way round. In this instance, providers would like to help their customers—in particular, parents of children with disabilities—to access money that otherwise would stay with that provider. The law is preventing that from happening in any timely fashion. We have an opportunity in this Bill to redress that problem, which has only just arisen and which, as my noble friend explained, was an oversight in the original legislation.

I was involved in some of the discussions on the introduction of the child trust fund, which aimed to help children have a capital sum by the time they reached age 18. All children born after 1 September 2002 received either £250 or £500 from the Government to be paid into a fund for maturity on their 18th birthday. Therefore, from September 2020, those first funds reached maturity. Many children up and down the country have been able to take that money. Unfortunately, we have a situation where, if the child is judged not to be sufficiently competent to manage their own money, their parent, who handles thousands of pounds for them in other ways, is unable to release that money.

Perhaps I may add a further example to that which was given by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. It is from a father called Andrew, whose son Mikey turned 18 last September and has a life-limiting condition. Andrew explains:

“We started saving money in his Child Trust Fund before we were aware that accessing it in the future would be a problem. We were encouraged and incentivised by the government to invest in a Child Trust Fund.”


The parents wanted,

“to use the money in the Child Trust Fund to purchase equipment and fund life experiences for Mikey, however, we cannot access the funds…Our time with Mikey is precious and we should not be having to spend time on this type of legal activity just to access money that ultimately belongs to Mikey.”

That sums up the problem we face.

I understand that we must be careful not to allow children with learning disabilities and disabled children to have money taken away from them under false pretences—there needs to be some protection. However, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Young, who has relentlessly pursued this issue time and again in your Lordships’ House through Oral and Written Questions, meetings and briefings. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can give us some comfort that we might be able to introduce measures in the Bill such as those outlined in Amendment 37C—whether at Third Reading or in another place when the Bill goes back.

This would potentially be considered a financial application, and there are significant delays at the Court of Protection, which has understandably prioritised applications in favour of health and welfare. The problems facing the parents of these children need to be urgently addressed. Sadly, many of them have little time left with their children. This Financial Services Bill also has the support of the providers of these child trust funds. My noble friend is concerned about this issue and has generously given his time and expertise to try to help us understand the particular problems. He has suggested that the issue revolves around a legislative roadblock. If we can free up the roadblock within the Bill, we will be doing a great service to many disabled children.