Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Boateng Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Boateng Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

Covid-19: Economy

Lord Boateng Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords, Covid presents a triple whammy to the UK’s economic prospects: supply, demand and finance have all taken a hit. We need a comprehensive, funded plan for all sectors as our response. I want to focus on skills and manufacture and the importance of equity in our response across regions and all demographic communities. We cannot leave any part of our country behind, as has been the case in recovery from previous downturns, nor can we allow existing patterns of disadvantage—as experienced, not least, by Britain’s black and ethnic minority communities—to continue. There is already some evidence to suggest that BAME applicants face continued disadvantage in accessing existing government schemes for Covid-related assistance. How is central government ensuring this is not the case? Will the Minister tell us what data is being collected and whether the Race Disparity Unit in the Cabinet Office is working with HMT on this? It needs to.

On the wider issue of manufacture, the lesson is surely that we need a strategic industrial policy that supports manufacture in the UK not only for our large global market leaders, which need to be supported with access to capital, but for small and medium-sized enterprises. Where, in the past, we have been content to outsource our orders for PPE, ventilators and other essential equipment to overseas suppliers, we now surely need an active interventionist policy to support our domestic industrial base. This needs to be backed up by procurement policy that actively favours our domestic suppliers where our national interest dictates that it should. We hear about the new freedoms outside the EU; this is an opportunity to demonstrate that.

We know too that there are regional/sectoral variations, which have to be addressed. We need to support local initiatives, with local employees and trade unions coming together with the LEP network to address these issues in order to meet local needs, supported by central government funding. We must also recognise that we need a funding entity that is prepared not simply to hold loans but to convert them if necessary into equity stakes.

Underpinning all this is Make UK’s call for a national skills taskforce, so we have a workforce that is equipped to face the challenges going forward, with well-paid, meaningful jobs that serve this country’s interests and protect us as we go forward into the future.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill) (LD)]

I remind noble Lords of the two-minute speaking limit.

Income Equality and Sustainability

Lord Boateng Excerpts

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords, we warmly welcome the speech of the right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and her presence now on the Bishops’ Benches. Above all, we thank the most reverend Primate for his contribution, not just in bringing us this debate but for a lifetime of service to the cause of social solidarity. He spoke, as he has throughout his career—throughout his service, from his time as a curate in Herne Hill, when I remember him well—of the importance of solidarity. He said that we are all in this together. Indeed, we are, but we have to make a reality of that, because the truth of the matter is that we are not a more equal society when, even before the coronavirus, UNICEF estimated that there were 2.5 million children living in food insecurity in our own country. Now it is even worse.

The Rainbow food centre, which I know well, has seen an increase of 42% in the number of children now having to turn to it for sustenance. We have to address this and give serious consideration, I argue, to a universal basic income. It is not true that it is not effective. The evidence is, as the LSE demonstrated only too recently with Compass, that a £20 billion scheme would lift one-third of people out of poverty. We know that it is being tried in Spain; we ought ourselves to examine it carefully. If we cannot do that, we can increase child benefit for all, and we ought to. We can and we should revisit the two-child rule. Will the Minister assure us that that is being done?

Social solidarity means “ubuntu”. The most reverend Primate knows that well. We are all in this together; let us demonstrate that with practical policies.

Breathing Space Scheme: Consultation Response

Lord Boateng Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords, the scheme is welcome. My early experience as a lawyer helping to run a citizens advice bureau service in north-west London taught me that two particular categories of people are often overlooked on this issue. The first is those who cannot read or write, who can find themselves falling into enormous difficulties as a result of not being able to share that fact with the authorities. The other is those who do not read, write or even understand English. Speaking from experience, I think it is absolutely vital that the scheme provides adequate resources for training facilities that meet the needs of those two special and sometimes overlooked groups.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord makes a valid point. Those who are innumerate or illiterate will have difficulties in this area. The Money and Pensions Service will ensure that there are debt advice agencies available that can meet the needs that the noble Lord has just explained, also ensuring that those who may not have English as their first or second language are also able to access the debt advice agencies. Our objective is to make the breathing space available to everyone who has a debt problem, whatever their background.

Soft Power and Conflict Prevention

Lord Boateng Excerpts

Friday 5th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords, we owe the most reverend Primate a debt of gratitude for enabling us to engage in what has been a worthwhile and stimulating debate, just as Africa and the wider world owe his church and the ecumenical movement a debt of gratitude for the outstanding work they are doing on conflict resolution in southern Sudan as we speak, and in Nigeria. Those are two area of Africa with which I am well acquainted.

As I think we have all gathered in the course of this morning’s debate, the reality is that the term “soft power” does not do justice to the cause that it represents. The values that underpin the communication and promotion of that vision—conflict resolution, peace, justice and reconciliation, which form the basis of sustainable development—are not, in fact, soft options. They are anything but that. They are tough and require tough thinking. They require courage on the part of the participants. My experience, whether as Chief Secretary, as a high commissioner or indeed on the front line in Africa today, teaches me that, in addition to those things, they require resources—resources applied on the ground with vigour and determination.

I want to share one or two thoughts on resources with the House. I fear the reality is that the resources for the exercise of soft power are, all too often, simply not there. They are certainly there much less readily than for the application of hard power. When I think of the chaos and suffering caused in the southern Sahel region of Africa by the application of hard power in Libya—a direct result of which has been the destabilisation of large parts of Mali and the fanning of the flames of dissent in so many countries bordering the Sahel—I think of the readiness with which money was found for it, and of the struggle now being experienced in the regions most affected by the deployment of military activity in Libya to find resources to build peace and address the underlying causes of conflict in the southern Sahel. Yes, those causes undoubtedly lie in religious division, but above all they find their basis in a sense of despair and hopelessness, on the part of a youthful population, to find any form of gainful employment, even when they have an education. Boko Haram, in its attack on western education, is fuelled by the reality in Nigeria and so many other parts of Africa: even when people have that education, there are no jobs. We need to realise that, in the application of soft power, we have to will the resources and find the resources to make a difference on the ground.

It is ironic that, even as we speak, the other place is debating and reflecting on the importance of putting into law our cross-party commitment, for which this country and our two Houses are to be commended, of putting 0.7% of GDP into overseas development assistance. I am bound to say this: we are going to be required to spend an additional £1 billion of overseas development assistance if we are to meet that 0.7% target. I very much hope that we will spend that money and that we will put into law that commitment to 0.7%. However, it is ironic that, as we do that, the British Council, the World Service, NGOs, the churches and so many other instruments of soft power are scrabbling for resources. This is not because of the deficit, but because we do not seem to be able to find a way of translating that ODA, through instruments of soft power, into making a difference on the ground. That is a challenge.

The most reverend Primate spoke, in the context of the next strategic defence and security review, of hoping to avoid another “rumble in the jungle” between the Treasury and the MoD. The wolf may lie down with the lamb, but I must share my experience with your Lordships. I feel quite at home in the jungle. That has nothing whatever to do with the fact I am a Hackney boy—we know how to defend ourselves. It is because I spent three and a half years in the jungle of the Treasury and in Whitehall as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I see a number of colleagues looking at me with a certain degree of—how can I put it? Trepidation is the wrong word, but there you are. We had our battles. Battles are the nature of what takes place in Whitehall when we look at public spending. It is right that there should be a rigorous approach to public spending. I fear that my experience has been, all too often, that it is an issue not just of one department losing out over another, but of failure on the part of our systems to require departments to work together. That happens time and again: the silo mentality, the determination to protect departmental budgets at all costs.

In that particular rumble in the jungle, DfID is no innocent. It is a department that has, for very understandable reasons, been jealous of the definition of ODA. As a result, it is extremely reluctant to spend money through the agency of other departments. We will have to do that. If we have this extra £1 billion that needs spending—and we have—I suggest it is much better to spend it through the MoD, the FCO, the Department of Health, the British Council and the World Service than simply to say, “We’ve got this money. Let’s just send it off through some other multilateral organisation outside the UK”. That really is not the way forward. The money is there; this is not a deficit issue. This country and all sides of the House are to be commended for their generosity in that respect. The question is how we spend that money. I will make two or three points relating to that.

The first concerns the ring-fence. We must be prepared to ring-fence the budget of the British Council, as was previously the case. Since the ring-fence was removed, not surprisingly the budget of that organisation has been consistently reduced. I fear that the figures speak for themselves. In the last year for which the British Council has figures, grant in aid from the FCO was reduced to £171.5 million, which represented 22% of the council’s total income. Five years before that, FCO grant in aid was £189 million, which represented 34% of its total income. Therefore, one can see the way in which the British Council’s budget is being consistently squeezed. The corporate plan for 2014-16 sees that amount decrease to 16%. Therefore, only 16% of the British Council’s budget will come from the FCO; the rest will have to come from elsewhere. The reality is that that elsewhere has been commercial activity related to the teaching of the English language.

I am second to none in my belief in the promotion of the English language. One can see in the register of interests that I am deputy chair of the English Speaking Union. I believe the promotion of the English language to be a good and vital thing, but it is not simply the promotion of the English language through commercial teaching that the British Council was set up to achieve. It was, should be and is at its best when it promotes our values and our vision—values and vision which underpin successful and sustainable development, as well as conflict resolution, and which are all about the substance of genuine and sustainable peace. This is not airy-fairy stuff; this is practical work that the British Council is delivering now through the Active Citizens programme and through the work that it is doing in Syria and Nigeria. However, it is all work that is under threat and underfunded, and where, I fear, we do not see evidence of spending supported adequately or sufficiently by overseas development assistance as it might be.

I am afraid that the Conflict Pool is not working. You have only to look at the report of the House of Commons International Development Select Committee, which makes that point. It points to the good things that the Conflict Pool has done but says:

“It has proved effective at … supporting worthwhile conflict prevention initiatives and has delivered some useful … results”,

but,

“it lacks a clear strategic framework and robust funding model”.

If we are serious about soft power and about the subject of this debate, we have to give the Conflict Pool a robust funding model. We have to make sure that the different government departments work together and are able to apply to that pool for the resources that they need to do the job. That includes the Foreign Office. We cannot talk about soft power while globally our reach is being diminished. The number of people we are able to deploy to advance our vision and our values is decreasing. They are hard-pressed but they do great work, as the most reverend Primate pointed out and as a number of your Lordships know from their own experience. The work that they do is absolutely essential to the deployment of our soft power.

The same applies to the MoD and our diplomatic reach in terms of our military attaches, who are engaged in the day-to-day business of promoting peace and conflict resolution on the continent of Africa. Our capacity now to deploy MoD personnel to that end has been seriously depleted, and our capacity to support the Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping and Training Centre has all but disappeared. You have only to examine the core curriculum of that training centre. It includes a police mobile training team, a conflict prevention course, an election management course, peacekeeping logistics and a rule of law course. This is what soft power is about, and we have to find a way of getting through the thickets and the jungles to which our spending processes are all too often subject in order to make sure that that precious resource is deployed.

This is not an issue that divides this House or our country; it is an issue that I fear requires us now to grasp the day-to-day business of making sure that we have, as the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy recommends, a security and strategic review next year leading to a new security strategy. However, we need to make sure that that is linked to the comprehensive spending review, to resources and to a change in the model of funding of our activities in this area. We have a great opportunity. There is much to be done. We have to seize the moment.

South Sudan

Lord Boateng Excerpts

Monday 28th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the situation is dreadful. Many of those who have fled their homes have therefore missed the planting season, which means that there is a real possibility of very substantial famine in six to nine months’ time. We should in no sense underestimate how serious the situation is. Of course, it is not simply one conflict; there are all sorts of overlapping local and trans-border conflicts that affect South Sudan. The Government are fully engaged. We are glad to see that UNMISS, in its assistance to refugee camps, is paying special attention to the need to protect women and children, but we are conscious that many are at risk.

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords, very often in that part of Africa the church is the sole common point of reference between the different tribal and ethnic groups. Will the noble Lord please ensure that both the FCO and DfID make use of the good offices of the ecumenical representative of the World Council of Churches and of the councils of bishops and evangelical churches in order to ensure that there is proper resourcing for peace and reconciliation work? It does not come cheap but it is effective.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I entirely agree that the churches are among the strongest and most widespread civil organisations in that deeply embattled country. Of course, many of the civil society organisations are now in refugee camps outside Sudan. I pay a particular compliment to those aid workers who are helping in South Sudan, in conditions of very considerable insecurity. Many of them come from British NGOs. We all recognise how difficult the situation is and we are certainly working with the churches as far as we can.

Egypt

Lord Boateng Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, as we all know, it has not been an easy transition, and one could add to the noble Baroness’s list new laws that limit the role of NGOs and their ability to accept foreign funding, arrests of bloggers and restrictions on the freedom of the media. It is a messy transition, which is not entirely surprising given how long the authoritarian Government of Egypt had been in effect and given also the internal divide between a relatively liberal urban elite and a much more conservative peasant class from outside Cairo. We have intervened on a number of occasions. My noble friend Lady Warsi made a major speech at the organisation of Islamic states conference on the importance of freedom of religion and belief, and my honourable friend and colleague, Alistair Burt, has spoken to the Egyptian Government several times in Cairo and elsewhere on the importance of respect for minority rights of all sorts.

[Lord Boateng]

How are the lessons from Egypt being applied to Syria? Given the plight of Christian refugees in the region since the rebellion in that country, it is not clear how the removal of the arms embargo actually assists the development of a free and multifaith, tolerant Middle East.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That is a huge question. A free and tolerant Middle East is something that we would all love to have. At present, in Iraq as well as in Syria and a number of other countries, the question of religious minorities, be they Muslim or non-Muslim, is very much in play. We know that the conflict between what one might call moderate Sunnis and Salafi Sunnis is also acute. We do what we can, and I have to say that Muslim leaders in this country also do what they can, to influence the debate, but we recognise that the Middle East is in turmoil. Coming out of this very long period of authoritarian regimes does not make it easy to change habits immediately.

Public Services

Lord Boateng Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Tabled by

[Lord Boateng]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take to enable the voluntary sector to participate in the delivery of public services.

[Lord Boateng]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to ask this Question. I am even more grateful to the numerous noble Lords on all sides of the House who have indicated a willingness to speak in this short debate. The numbers themselves indicate the extent of enthusiasm and interest in the House in the voluntary sector. That comes as no surprise, because noble Lords of this House, on all sides, will have cut their teeth in public service in the course of engagement with and membership of voluntary organisations of all sorts. We are enthusiasts for the role of the voluntary sector and its capacity to contribute to the civic life of our country. We owe it a debt of gratitude.

This is a time of risk and opportunity for the sector. The opportunity lies in the undoubted commitment of this Government and indeed the appetite of peoples of all political persuasions and none for public service reform. We want to see the delivery of our public services improved and made more efficient. We believe— overwhelmingly, in my experience—that the voluntary sector has a role to play in enabling that to happen. It is a source of innovation; it permits a greater degree of connection with our citizens because it operates close to the ground; and it is a source of passion, enthusiasm and activism within communities up and down the country.

The opportunity is there for the public sector to take to its heart the voluntary sector, to embrace it and to enable it to contribute to the reform process. Many of us hope and believe that that was the impulse that lay behind the Prime Minister’s promotion of the big society. I have never been one of those who decried that term and ambition. I believe quite unabashedly in the big society where that means the active involvement of the citizen and their enablement and empowerment to take responsibility for the improvement of the community as a whole. It is summed up in the South African principle of “ubuntu”: we are what we are because of others, and our relationship with others shapes not only ourselves but also our society for the better.

That is why I was glad—along with a number of noble Lords in this House and honourable Members in the other—to accept the invitation of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations to join the Commission on Big Society. It produced a report which was widely welcomed by the voluntary sector and received by Government. We would benefit from a considered and detailed response from the Government. I hope that that will be forthcoming, and I look forward very much to the Minister’s response to the debate this evening, in view of his wealth of experience in the not-for-profit sector.

Central to the report’s findings was the call for a better partnership between central and local government and the voluntary sector. It made a number of practical proposals, which I will come to, as to how that partnership might be enhanced. The opportunity is there, if the Government will but take it, to find a partner for change and improvement in the voluntary sector. However, there is also risk. Only this week we saw published by the Charities Aid Foundation and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations a report on UK giving in 2012 that found that donations to charity had fallen by 20% in real terms in the past year. This means that £1.7 billion less is being given to charity. In addition, fewer people are donating to charity, and the average amount given by donors also fell. This undoubtedly reflects the period of austerity and the challenging economic times in which we live.

Even more worrying was the concern highlighted by a trawl of some 252 senior workers in charities by the Charities Aid Foundation. The results, also published this week, highlighted the severe threat facing many of our nations’ charities. The survey found that 17% of those asked said that is was likely that their charity would face closure in the next 12 months; 40% worry that their charity may have to close if the economic situation does not improve; nearly half—49%—of charities asked had been forced to use their reserves to cover income shortfalls over the last year; and more than one-quarter—some 26%—have cut front-line services.

This is not a plea for more resources for charities in these straitened times. Of course, one always hopes for more resources and greater giving to charities. I hope that the Minister will pass on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary that there is more that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs could do in reviewing the gift aid system and to promote giving; I hope it will do so. However, the main purpose of this debate is to ask what we can do and we should be doing to promote the partnership between the voluntary sector on the one hand and central and local government on the other. I argue that this partnership is at the heart of the reform of public services and the better delivery of services to the public.

That partnership was enshrined in the compact between the voluntary sector and government which was initiated by the previous Government and which has been carried on by the current Government—and to their credit. It sets out the key principles of the approach which needs to be taken to improve the relationship to the mutual advantage of both. The compact is itself subject to stresses and strains at this time. The recent Compact Voice report on local authorities and the voluntary and community sector found that up to 50% of local authorities are in fact cutting the voluntary and community sector disproportionately. What will the Government do to ensure that local authorities are sticking to best value guidance? One year on from the publication of the NAO report into compact implementation, what demonstrable progress has been made in the implementation of its recommendations?

I also raise with the Government the issue of commissioning. If there is to be an effective partnership between the voluntary and statutory sectors at a time of public service reform, we need effective public service commissioning. We need to see that the Public Services (Social Value) Act is effectively implemented. We need flexible commissioning approaches which allow potential providers to deliver in consortia and partnerships and to assist that progress. We also need to invest in the capacity of the provider base, particularly those smaller organisations which are working with vulnerable or hard-to-reach groups. Very often it is those hard-to-reach groups that can be adversely affected by the payment by results approach adopted by government. I do not deny that there is value in the approach, but I fear that bad practices such as cherry picking and going for low-hanging fruit, the targets that are easiest to achieve, may lead to a situation in which we will fail to serve those most in need—the most difficult to reach of those suffering from a disability, and the most hardened of those being served by the excellent charities working in the field of rehabilitation, crime prevention and with the homeless—if we adopt a payment by results approach.

What are the Government doing to ensure that emerging payment by results methods have effective tariff systems? They can make a huge difference to ensuring that government and the voluntary sector are working effectively together to address the needs of the most vulnerable. What are the Government doing to support the voluntary sector in the transition to payment by results models?

I will end there. This is an important debate. I will welcome the Minister’s response to these questions and to the many others that no doubt we will hear from other noble Lords.