Debates between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Leigh of Hurley during the 2019-2024 Parliament

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Leigh of Hurley
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
- Hansard - -

No, the noble Lord is not right. That is not what I said. We have guidance about specific investment in the Occupied Territories. That is what the Government issue now. Why is that so confusing?

Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

What, then, is the effect of proposed new subsection 4B(b) if not a blanket ban?

Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
- Hansard - -

Do you mean “must have regard to”?

Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Proposed new subsection 4B(b).

Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
- Hansard - -

We currently have guidance on human rights and investment decisions. On other groups of amendments we will discuss the whole question of environmental, social and governance issues. When a public body is taking into account investment decisions, as a private company would, it takes into account those sorts of policies. We will come on to pension schemes in a later group. The problem we have at the moment is that this debate is on BDS but we are actually talking about ethical investment policies. No one is concerned about those issues when we have general debates about procurement and ethical policy. This comes down to specific targeting campaigns that are not to do with human rights.

I strongly defend the right of Israel to exist. I strongly defend the right of Israel to defend itself. Those two things go together. If a campaign of BDS is saying that Israel occupied territories in 1948—many of these campaigns talk not about 1973 but about 1948—I do not agree with that. Israel exists and has a mandate to exist. We must respect that, and I strongly believe in it. But when we come to human rights and investment policy decisions, the Government are more than capable of giving guidance on that, because they do so at the moment through the UN guiding principles, the Modern Slavery Act and all the other things that we have done. The Procurement Act even has paragraphs in it as well. So it is not impossible to have the sort of guidance that we are advocating in this amendment.

Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I simply say that the noble Lord has criticised the wording and language of the Bill quite specifically. If this amendment is to be presented at a later stage, proposed new subsection 4B(b) does not work because it is a blanket ban.

Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
- Hansard - -

I am more than happy to discuss the wording of this amendment and this proposal. We are not advocating blanket bans. There must be a reason for a ban. The FCDO issues a list of countries that have human rights issues—some, such as North Korea, have very clear issues—but they are not all countries where you would ban engagement or investment, or say, “That’s the end of the road”. An ethical investment policy needs to look at a range of issues—basically, the ESG issues that we will come on to in later groups. I do not want to go through them now.