Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Baroness Blower Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

Electoral System (Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 Committee Report)

Baroness Blower Excerpts

Friday 11th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in the gap. I come late to this, having not been part of the committee but knowing that there is much more to do in the electoral system. As noble Lords may know, I come from an education background and one of the things we often talk about as teachers in discussing our pedagogical approach is that, if we want to inculcate good habits in young people, we have to catch them early. By “catching them early”, I mean not just immediately before they are required to register to vote. I regret the fact that the primary schoolchildren who were previously in the Gallery have now left, because it is my contention that, although I know the national curriculum to be overburdened and that teachers have many responsibilities wished upon them, actually there is a proper place in the primary, let alone secondary, classroom and curriculum to make sure that young people understand about the process of registration and voting.

To follow on logically from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, I know very large numbers of young people who genuinely believe that registration to vote is automatic. I have actually been at polling stations where young people whom I have met have turned up to vote in the full belief that they could vote, although they were in fact unregistered. So, while I do not wish to add to the burden of my colleagues who are teachers, I do believe that it is important for the Government to consider what further role there might be for schools. In my experience, there are a number of teachers who are enthusiastic about this, who definitely regretted the loss of Bite The Ballot, and have sought, in their own small ways, to carve out space in the curriculum to make sure that children, who, of course, will not be voting any time soon, and young people in secondary, who might very well be, are actually fully informed of what their rights and responsibilities are as engaged and active citizens. This is clearly a very good report, as all Members have said, but there is clearly “more to be done”.

Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill [HL]

Baroness Blower Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 25th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to speak on Second Reading and trust that the Bill will proceed to enactment. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bird, on his captivating presentation and differ somewhat from the noble Lord, Lord Flight, whom I follow. Short-termism is the enemy of better policy-making, which is why the issues of sustainable development, the well-being goals and the future generations principle contained in the Bill are so important.

Many noble Lords have experience and expertise of the approach taken by the Labour Government in Wales, but Wales is not alone in being forward-looking. I will comment on the work being done in New Zealand, where the Government’s commitment to the well-being of future generations is underpinned by a well-being budget. Although New Zealand is in general a nation that is healthy, well educated, socially connected and has a high material standard of living, it has some of the problems we see in the UK: poor mental health outcomes for some sections of the population, significant numbers of children living in poverty, and significant disparities of well-being between different ethnic groups. In her introduction to the Wellbeing Budget, Jacinda Ardern, the New Zealand Prime Minister, observes that

“While economic growth is important—and something we will continue to pursue—it alone does not guarantee improvements to our living standards… Nor does it measure the quality of economic activity or take into account who benefits and who is left out or who is left behind.”


If the pandemic has taught us anything, it is that we live in an incredibly unequal society in the UK. Some of us knew that before March 2020, but it is now abundantly clear to all. In household income, work and health outcomes, both mental and physical, and in education—to name but a few—there is a great deal to be done before we get anywhere near the Government’s so-called levelling-up agenda.

The future generations principle is defined as

“acting in a manner which seeks to ensure that the needs of the present are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.

Many presently in your Lordships House are of the generation which has seen the introduction of enormous amounts of plastics, of one kind or another, into our lives. It could be argued that, 50 or 60 years ago, no one had any idea that plastics would be littering the land or killing our oceans. It is incumbent on us to ensure that any new materials brought into use for the convenience of those who live now will not have a deleterious effect on the people still alive and around when we are long dead. It could also be argued that this is difficult, because we cannot know what the future wants. But Professor Thompson, who is mentioned in the Explanatory Notes, says there are many things we can know—for instance, that future generations

“will not want to live with toxic chemicals, foul air, and chronic disease.”

There is a great deal we can do in this Bill. I hope it goes further and to enactment.

EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

Baroness Blower Excerpts

Friday 8th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, even given that the Prime Minister has a propensity for colourful and sometimes distinctly inappropriate turns of phrase, his assertion that, post Brexit, we will not be sending children up chimneys or pouring raw sewage on to beaches does not give confidence to those of us who are concerned about the future of environmental protections and workers’ rights. It is of course the case that, over the years, trade unions have struggled long and hard to achieve decent terms and conditions for their members. Even so, many of those workers whom the Covid crisis has shown to be central to the effective functioning of our society—care workers, shop workers, delivery drivers and cleaners—find themselves in insecure and very poorly paid work, notwithstanding their absolute necessity to society.

EU workers’ rights are by no means comprehensive, but they are significant on health and safety, equality and discrimination, paid holidays and working time. It is clear that, in the Brexit negotiations, the UK Government insisted on wording which could, and will in all likelihood, facilitate the dilution of workers’ rights deriving from the EU. Why was this done? Were it the Government’s intention to diverge from these rights by improving them, no wording would have been necessary. Perhaps the Minister can give a guarantee that the Government’s much-vaunted levelling-up agenda will see post-Brexit rights sustained and enhanced for all workers, rather than diluted.