Inheritance Tax, National Insurance and VAT

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

We need to thank the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, for introducing this debate. I admire the passion and clarity of the arguments he presented; unfortunately, I just do not agree. I think the Labour Government’s adjustment—the Motion says removal, but of course it is not being removed; it is being cut back—of APR for inheritance tax, the increase in national insurance contributions and the extension of VAT to private school fees are all steps towards greater economic fairness in funding for public services.

We had a debate on the school fees issue, in which I spoke and I do not wish to repeat what I said there. We are having an apparently endless debate in the Committee on the national insurance contributions Bill, and I will save my remarks on that for that arena. But I will add that the point that the money will be spent on improved public services—providing jobs and buying in services from suppliers—is always ignored by the opponents of the increase in national insurance contributions. Perhaps my noble friend could say something about the positive impact that will have on the economy, as reflected in the figures from the OBR.

I am running out of time, but I will say something about inheritance tax. I do not give advice on inheritance tax, but I do read the financial pages. Clearly, until this whole debate took place, the general view was that inheritance tax was essentially voluntary; you paid it only if you did not arrange your affairs appropriately. Now is not the time to provide advice but, given succession planning and insurance, the problems can be overcome.

Economic Growth

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for initiating this debate, which has been interesting although not always enlightening. I was tempted to talk about pensions, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Swinburne, but we will have other opportunities to debate that. I will simply say that it is a lot more complicated than that.

I speak as an unreconstructed Keynesian with a side order of Joan Robinson—I will come back to that in a minute—but, first, it is preposterous for those on the other side to lecture us on the UK’s poor economic performance. They were in power for the last 14 years. As explained by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who is not in his place, they cannot shift the blame to anyone else. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats could take a little share of the blame, but they may be reformed sinners. They also try to claim that the ups and downs of short-term statistics over the last few weeks is in some form the fault of this Government. Well, to use the tired analogy, it is like the supertanker heading for the rocks. They steered it towards the rocks, we are steering it away and the move is starting.

I mentioned Joan Robinson because I want to quote from a book by the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, about the women who made modern economics. She states:

“Keynesian economics as developed by Robinson is still relevant for policymakers today, and I would argue that the poor performance of the UK economy since 2010 owes a lot to the failure to heed the lessons of Keynesian economics. When David Cameron and George Osborne became prime minister and chancellor respectively in 2010, they embarked on a programme of austerity that went against everything that Keynes (and Robinson) would have advised”.


Subsequently, she says:

“Welfare spending was cut, public sector wages frozen, departmental budgets for everything except the NHS cut”.


She concludes by pointing out:

“The economic recovery which was picking up steam at the end of 2009 and into 2010 was stopped in its tracks. Economic growth stalled and productivity tumbled”.


That is the record of 14 years of Conservative Government. They come here today and lecture us on the failure of the present Government. Let us see. I hope my noble friend will be able to assure us that we will not be adopting the policies of 2010 from the coalition and that the policies we introduce will achieve the economic growth that we require.

I conclude with a final comment on the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew—not the substance; I look forward to his joining us on the Economic Affairs Committee and some interesting debates. He said, in effect, that 10,000 millionaires were leaving the UK each year. Well, I have to admit that I am a millionaire. I live in central London. I have a house that is worth more than £1 million. Using the tired old trope of millionaires is meaningless. A vast number of millionaires have been created. I suspect that we are going back to the time of our childhood, when £1 million was a lot of money. It is not any more.

Civil Servants: Compulsory Office Attendance

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

This has been an interesting debate, and we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for introducing the subject and giving us an opportunity to discuss these issues. In fact, it is interesting to follow the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, because, in preparation for this debate, I was re-reading the debates that took place in this House on the Factories Act 1847, which introduced a 10-hour day. There were plenty of speakers in this Chamber who opposed the revolutionary concept that people—in that particular Act, it was only women and children—should not have to work for more than 10 hours in a day. Clearly, ideas on what is the right way of working move on.

As well as hybrid working, there is the issue of the four-day week. It is interesting that PCS is seeking agreements in other areas of employment for a four-day week. These standards and expectations move on. The key—in some ways, what the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, said is correct—is to deliver the job in hand. There is no shibboleth that we should have about actual attendance; that in itself is not important. The issue is the delivery of the job in hand. It is quite clear, and it has not really been spelled out in the debate, that the Land Registry has failed to deliver the job in hand: there is a massive backlog.

I will not pretend that I totally understand why there has been such difficulty, but, clearly, getting into an argument with the staff does not seem to be a great way of solving the problem. Forcing your staff to undertake a ballot for industrial action, where 84% of the staff believe they should take action short of a strike in order to defend their working conditions, seems to me an indictment of the management rather than of the union.

I would just correct the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, on one point. There is no strike planned from 21 January; there is action short of a strike, where the staff concerned will refuse to do work outside of their allotted grade and to fill in time for absent colleagues. There is no strike at this stage, although 69%—again, a relatively high figure—voted for the potential of strike action. However, the decision has not yet been made on whether that will take place.

We can see here the need to understand the position of the union. Why are we here with the union? It is not an arbitrary decision on its part. In fact, it should be emphasised that the industrial action relates not just to hybrid working but to the issue of how work is assessed and who does the work. The workforce there are extremely concerned that people are, in effect, being asked to act up, presumably because of the delays and shortfalls, without the necessary training that they need to undertake that work.

Overall, we can see here a pattern of management—other speakers emphasised the importance of good management—failing to deliver the job. Whether that is an issue of lack of resources is difficult to tell from outside. The key issue is leaving it to the people involved—the management and the unions—to undertake the proper collective bargaining to arrive at a satisfactory solution.

Climate Agenda

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I welcome this debate and look forward to the other speakers and the debate that will take place between them. In particular, I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead.

I will not pursue the specific points that were made in the introductory speech. I will use the limited time available to me to highlight some excellent and important work that has been undertaken on climate change by the actuarial profession. I declare my interest as a member of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries as entered in the register. Climate change is an issue to which actuaries are devoting increasing attention. What happens in the future is intrinsic to the work of actuaries, hence the risks inherent in climate change are an essential element in the work that we do. It is already built into our professional standards. We are, in an important sense, risk scientists, able to uncover uncomfortable possibilities involving the risks we face, to which mainstream debates struggle to give sufficient weight.

I do not have enough time to go through all the arguments, but I trust my noble friend the Minister will follow up the information and perhaps even organise a meeting at which they can be explored at greater length. In summary, work undertaken by the profession in the report it produced last year, The Emperor’s New Climate Scenarios, identified that many of the models used to predict economic damage from the hothouse world we face have been too optimistic. Actuaries are saying that the models are not sufficiently accurate for us to place sufficient weight on them. They underestimate the rate at which the Earth is warming, hence carbon budgets based on those estimates are no longer applicable.

More recent work by the profession has identified how close we are to the risk of real problems and how they should be taken into account when making our decisions on policy. The key document here is the institute’s report from March this year, written in conjunction with Exeter University, Climate Scorpion—The Sting is in the Tail. The point made in the title is that the models currently used fail adequately to take into account what are called “tail risks”: the problems that appear towards the end of the period that is being assessed. The risky outcomes of climate change are those in the tail end of the models that are being used.

In short, the message is that we need to give greater weight in our assessment to worst-case scenarios. They need to be taken into account when making policy on climate change. This is essential, given our growing yet precarious lack of knowledge about extreme climate risk and, crucially, the range of tipping points that we face. For example, we have to treat the 1.5 degrees centigrade limit as a physical limit, not a political target. Too often the long-term impacts of climate change are described in terms of central estimates, when rule number one of risk assessment is to focus on the worst case. This subsequent note by actuaries makes it clear, first, that current energy policies are not sufficient to meet the Paris Agreement goals, that an overshoot of the 1.5 degrees centigrade threshold is now more likely than in the past, and that the rate of global warming was accelerating in 2023. In fact, the rate of acceleration was accelerating. We are going faster towards these tipping point risks.

Secondly, there are material risks associated with a failure to meet those goals, with the risk of triggering multiple climate tipping points and a potential tipping cascade. We must understand that a failure to meet the target does not mean that things will be a bit worse; we must take more seriously the fact that passing one of the tipping points will result in catastrophe.

I am therefore concerned about the Answer that my noble friend the Minister gave yesterday to the Written Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, referring to AMOC, the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation; at school we may have referred to it as the Gulf Stream drift, but it is now AMOC. The collapse of AMOC undoubtedly presents existential—an overused word, but in this case it is meaningful—risks to food production and water availability. Saying “It’s okay so far, and there are a range of views” is not an adequate response to the risks that we face.

The actuarial profession is taking these risks seriously. There are reports by practitioners who understand the nature of risks and how to adapt policy to those risks. I hope the Government will accept the information they are being provided with and adapt their policies to reflect these new dangers.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th May 2024 Lords Chamber

These provisions are quite extraordinary. There are a number of places in the Bill where the drafters have bent over backwards to try to enact provisions that do not have the wrong effects, and some pretty tortuous drafting has resulted. In this particular case, it is absolutely manifest that there is no justification for these provisions. They do not help the purpose of the Bill and they are a very damaging incursion into an area which, as the Constitution Committee pointed out, we should be protecting: freedom of speech.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I shall follow the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, who quoted from the Government’s Explanatory Notes. This is the House of Lords wording in the Explanatory Notes: it was supposedly toughened up following discussion in the Public Bill Committee in the House of Commons. So we have this explanation in front of us and I shall just quote again what the noble Lord, Lord Beith, quoted, which is that

“councillors of a local authority are not a public authority and, therefore, are not prohibited from expressing support for or”—

my emphasis—

“voting in favour of a motion supporting a boycott”.

Can the Minister give us an assurance? If councillors vote for a boycott, which they are entitled to do, according to the Explanatory Notes, and if that boycott motion is passed, enforcement action is taken and ultimately a civil penalty can be levied, is there any prospect whatever of those councillors who voted for the boycott motion being surcharged? Because the prospect of that must clearly be a limitation on their ability to speak.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, as a Conservative, I believe absolutely in the right to freedom of speech, but I do not think that the limits on freedom of speech in Clause 4 are as great as some noble Lords have tried to make out. I do not think that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights is something that affects the rights of individuals, and Clause 4 is fundamentally aimed at public authorities. I completely understand that there is a very small number of public authorities who can be individuals as well, but, as my noble friend the Minister explained at Second Reading and as the Explanatory Notes make very clear, the prohibition on statements is against public authorities and attaches to individuals only to the extent that they are speaking for the public authority. Even if it applies to the statements made by individuals on behalf of the public authority, the ban applies to the public authority and the enforcement action is taken against the public authority. So individuals are not targeted by Clause 4.

We have to remember that this is not an academic issue. We already know that councils are starting to pass BDS motions and they are against this Bill. We know that the student encampments are including demands or public statements on the conflict in the Middle East and on divestment. They may not get all their demands, but that is certainly where they are pushing towards. Without the Bill, I think we can be fairly sure that BDS activities and statements will continue to increase and that will have an impact on social cohesion, and a particular impact on the Jewish communities that are affected by the sorts of statements that are made.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of the noble Baroness who has just spoken on Amendment 45, as well as Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has eloquently drawn to the attention of the Committee, this is another of the points at which this legislation’s handling of Israel arises. The issue is the elision that has been made by the Government between the State of Israel and the Occupied Territories—the West Bank, the Golan Heights and east Jerusalem. Within the Occupied Territories there is a mass of illegal settlements, which the international community and the British Government regard as illegal. A whole rash of outposts have now been established from those settlements, which are also illegal. The elision between the State of Israel and the settlements is causing infinite trouble to this Bill, and I hope that the Minister will find some way to sort this out, because it really needs to be sorted out.

There is no disagreement, between the Government and those of us who wish to see this sorted out, about the settlements in the West Bank, Golan and east Jerusalem. We all agree that they are illegal under international law. I think we therefore agree—the Minister was very clear about this at Second Reading and when it came up in earlier amendments—that for British companies, pension funds or whatever else to invest in those illegal settlements, even unwittingly, would be to create an illegality. Presumably, the Government do not want a British company or a British pension fund to do that—and I hope that we would not want it either.

These amendments would make it somewhat easier for the bodies covered by the Bill to make sure that they were not being drawn into illegality in any way and thus acting in a way that would be contrary to government policy. I hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to the issue, because I am afraid that the elision between the State of Israel and the Occupied Territories is really damaging to the Bill’s prospects.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I have made no secret that this is a bad Bill that is badly drafted, and I spoke against it at Second Reading. In this debate, my suggestion that we should not agree Clause 12 is narrowly focused.

Local government pension schemes should be treated in exactly the same way as every other funded occupational pension scheme—the point made by my noble friend Lady Blackstone. I agree totally with the amendments tabled by my noble friends, and I certainly support their proposals, but my question is: do we need separate legislation to cover the local government pension schemes? My strong view is that we do not; the schemes should all be treated the same. They should come under the same rules as the fiduciary duties on trustees or committees —whoever is responsible for taking the decisions—and they should be the same across the board.

I tabled my clause stand part notice just to ask what the effect would be of not having this provision. Would it mean that I achieve my objective and that, should the provision be removed from the Bill, the local government pension schemes would be treated like other pension schemes? I suspect not. I suspect that I would need a more detailed amendment that would place local government pension schemes under the same responsibilities and law as occupational pension schemes more generally. That is my objective, and I hope that we can have this debate again on Report so that all pension schemes are treated the same.

I listened carefully to the remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, but I think her argument fails. First, there are private employers whose employees are within the local government pension scheme. Equally, there are public bodies whose pension schemes are not covered by this legislation, most obviously the universities superannuation scheme. So the division between the sheep and the goats in this respect is arbitrary. There is no consistency about—

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

The noble Lord and I usually agree on so many pension issues—in fact, almost all of them. However, would he not agree that the fundamental difference between the local authority pension schemes and private schemes, or indeed the universities super- annuation scheme, is that the local authority pension schemes do not belong to the Pension Protection Fund and do not pay levies to it, and are therefore effectively underwritten by central government, not by local government? If a council goes bust, it is rather difficult to imagine that the burden of paying the pensions promised to local authority workers would not fall on government itself. That is indeed the reason why these schemes are not part of the Pension Protection Fund, and indeed do not pay any kind of levy. For me, that is a powerful reason—I would be grateful to hear the noble Lord’s view—why there should be a differentiation between those schemes and all other schemes. Typically, there is not, but that misses an important part of this debate.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I am afraid to say that it is not that simple. Technically, the history is that the funds established by local authorities to pay the pensions of their employees were there to protect the ratepayer rather than the members. That is the history of it, but I think we have moved on from that. Certainly, the members of these schemes believe that the money they have paid is there for their benefit. What would happen if a local government pension fund were unable to pay the benefits that were due is actually an open question. There is no explicit government guarantee for the local government pension scheme.

In addition, under the present provisions of the cost-sharing enforced by the Government on the Local Government Pension Scheme, it is the members who are the residual fund source of any shortfall in money. If there is a shortfall in the Local Government Pension Scheme, the contribution from the local authority is capped; it is the members who will lose out by having to pay higher contributions or seeing their benefits reduced. It is not a simple matter of “The Government will always make things good”. Initially, the members have to make things good. If the members cannot afford it, I suspect that it is right that the Government will step in—but that is not in the rules, so there is a contingent possibility there. So the situation is far less clear-cut than the sheep and goats I identified earlier.

Of course, this all comes about because technically, I think, under present law, the administration of the Local Government Pension Scheme comes under the aegis of a public body or public authority. I am not really sure what the difference is between the different terms under the Bill. But that is not how it is perceived by scheme members. They do not see their pension scheme as being a public authority, and we should respect that. As I say, my central thought is that local government pension schemes should be treated like all other occupational pension schemes.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

I want to ask a simple question. At the moment, all pensions are in many ways looked at by the Pensions Regulator. Does that regulator distinguish between the local authority pension scheme and the pension scheme for me—for the Church of England —when, as you say, if there is not enough money within that pension fund, the members have to put it in? Is there a difference? Does the Pensions Regulator ever say, “Well, this is a local authority and I am going to look at them differently because the Government may put in money and I think your analysis is the right one?” If the regulator does not, why are we making a difference here?

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his question. This comes up under group 5, where I have a lot to say about the role of the Pensions Regulator, but that comes under the issue of enforcement. Here I am just talking about the principle of how we should think about local government pension schemes. Whatever the legal niceties, my view is that they should be treated exactly like every other pension scheme.

My amendment at this stage is simply to ask: if we do not have Clause 12, does that mean that the same rules will apply to all pension schemes, including the Local Government Pension Scheme, or do I have to move a more difficult, technical amendment on Report in order to achieve that objective?

We have to remember that all pension scheme trustees are subject to the fiduciary responsibilities. In the remaining 30 seconds of my time, I think it is worth highlighting what the pensions officer of the Local Government Association said in evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the House of Commons. He said the association’s prime concern was the impact of these provisions—the way they will interfere with its fiduciary duties. He also mentioned the additional administrative costs that would be involved and having to deal with the inevitable legal challenges. So the LGA has those practical concerns. My belief is that we should just treat all schemes the same and that the trustees should be left to get on with their job of looking after their members’ money.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I have not spoken previously on the Bill and apologise to the Committee that I could not be here at Second Reading, but I have listened to the debates through the last several weeks. I will make just three points.

First, to pick up directly the point about foreign policy from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, United Kingdom universities are privileged among European countries to host some of the finest international relations departments in the world. The only international relations departments that perhaps rank as superior to those of some of our universities—including my alma mater, the London School of Economics—are those at the American universities. To say to your international relations scholars that they will suddenly have thought control through legislation, and will be unable to teach with the rigour of academic freedom that has made these departments as good as they are, would be astonishing. It would be beyond an own goal. Leaving aside the pertinent points made by noble Lords across the Chamber on the duties of the Office for Students—including the powerful points by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson—the idea that foreign policy should be subject to some kind of legislative parameters is extraordinary and will stop us producing the calibre of diplomats that we have been lucky to have over many decades.

Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, talked about to what extent universities are public bodies. This is extraordinary. For at least the last 10 years, I have asked several questions in this Chamber about one or two aspects of the autonomy of universities, generally about student fees or the catastrophe that affected the universities superannuation pension scheme some years ago when the wrong calculations were made, which really disadvantaged junior academics. Every time, I was told from the Dispatch Box: “Universities are autonomous; we can’t possibly look into what’s happening to interest rates on student fees or the pension fund”. Suddenly, we now discover that they are more and more in the public sector, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said.

I should have declared an interest—everybody knows it—as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but I am speaking in a personal capacity. The public sector equality duty of course applies to universities, but the Equality and Human Rights Commission is also a human rights commission and has to look to Article 10 rights. It has worked closely with the Office for Students on some of these areas since it was established. I wonder what consideration the Government have given in what they have been saying, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, powerfully said, about on the one hand wanting absolute freedom of expression while on the other, within months, seeking to curtail it. It will be very interesting to hear what the Minister has to say.

Before concluding, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mann, on making such a powerful speech. He is absolutely right. The reports I get, when speaking to Jewish organisations about anti-Semitic incidents, are that individual students are now finding themselves friendless, when university life is meant to be the exact opposite of that. I share his despair in that regard.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I just want to ask the Minister a question relating to academic freedom. Paragraph 20 of the Explanatory Notes gives a quite qualified exposition of how academic freedom will not be affected by this scheme. It refers only to ending existing contracts and to a break because of the provisions under a particular statutory provision. It is a very narrow qualifying expression; we all hope that this Bill, were it to be passed, would not affect academic freedom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Possibly first class. No one can forget that academia is not immune to bigotry. Let us recall that Heidelberg University in Germany was no less prestigious than any UK university in its day. In the 1920s, it was the centre of liberal thinking. A decade later, a mob of Heidelberg students burned Jewish and other so-called “corrupt” books in the Universitätsplatz. Jewish students and Jewish academics were banned, its faculty developed pseudo-academic fields such as race theory, eugenics and forced euthanasia. Heidelberg was led by administrators who lacked moral leadership—and we all know how this ended.

It cannot be right that students at universities around the world feel unprotected and threatened. Most ironically, only a few years ago, children of Jewish friends of mine were telling their parents they did not feel comfortable going to a UK university, so they applied to go to one in the United States. The appalling lack of leadership in some US universities has quite rightly led to the removal of their leadership in some famous cases. We are all watching Columbia University, apparently led by the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, most carefully to see whether it can exhibit proper leadership against the vile intimidation and abuse.

In the UK, we have seen many universities fail to take proper action. I will cite some alarming incidents indicative of this unsafe environment. For example, in Leeds there was the attack on a Jewish chaplain, a rabbi, the sit-in at the Parkinson building, the daubing of the Jewish student centre and the encampment outside of the student union. Apart from the absurdity of the protesters protesting against an occupation by occupying university buildings, the demonstrations themselves are misplaced—and, as at other universities, such as King’s College, Cambridge, are causing huge distress to Jewish students, as has been noted.

Despite very sterling work by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, it is endemic. In Birmingham, students called for “Zionists off our campus”. We know what they mean, “No Jews here”—as they did in Heidelberg. A while ago, in December 2021, City University students, among others, demanded a BDS ban. It was stopped only because the Charity Commission ruled that this was in breach of its charitable status. Interestingly, the leader of the call for BDS there, Shaima Dallali, was subsequently elected president of the National Union of Students before she was suspended for anti-Semitism. The connection between the call for BDS and anti-Semitism is staring us in the face

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

Today, it has been reported that she has been compensated for unfair dismissal—so I do not think the point quite works as the noble Lord intends.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the proposers of these amendments for offering an opportunity to establish, as many have said today, some precision and clarity on the range and definition of the public bodies referred to in the Bill. The Minister has an opportunity to reassure us and many groups who fear the implications of this Bill.

In Amendment 22, we are talking about schools or nurseries. The Minister has said we are talking about procurement, but do the Government really intend that school governors should sit poring over the school meals procurement to see whether they are contravening the terms of this Bill in any way? Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said earlier, would they also contravene the terms of the Bill even in talking about it and taking advice?

Do the Government intend that charity commissioners and trustees should take into account the implications of this Bill, and perhaps face vexatious challenges to contest some of the decisions that they have already made? The fact that the definitions are so poor, as many people have said here today, will leave open legal action and vexatious possibilities of weaponising this legislation, by the whole scope that seems to be covered. But the Minister can reassure us today, or in writing, that the list of public bodies covered is, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said, closely defined and clearly identifiable by those whom it affects.

Particularly concerning, as highlighted in Amendment 26, is the implication for charitable organisations delivering public functions in terms of overseas aid and humanitarian work. Often founded on moral principles, as the right reverend Prelate said, many of these organisations have foundations which relate to moral principles and values, which they take into account when taking their decisions, whether on procurement or on investment. I believe territorial considerations must also be key to the functioning of these groups and charities. I agree we need a clear definition, and I would also like to understand and be reassured by the Minister on the reason for the additional powers being given to Ministers.

On the last amendment on this list, we should really have a much better idea—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who said that we are swimming through a sticky pudding, was absolutely right. We are totally unclear about the terms and the scope of this Bill, and I hope that we may be reassured in the course of this Committee.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I have two questions relating to the issue of what constitutes a public body. My major interest in this Bill is Clauses 12 and 13, about local government pension schemes. It is interesting that it requires a separate section of this Bill to deal with local government pension schemes; that clearly indicates that these organisations are not public bodies. The Government’s commitment was in relation to public bodies and yet the Bill is being extended to these other organisations, which require their own section in the Bill, as they are clearly not covered by the general term “public bodies”. Perhaps the Minister could confirm or explain that particular point.

I have a different point relating to pension schemes. Some of these public bodies that we have been talking about have their own funded pension schemes, which are making investment and procurement decisions. As I understand it, because they are separate trusts, they are not themselves public bodies. But they belong to a public body and they are associated with the public body, so it is possible, within the bounds of trusts law, for those pension scheme trustee bodies to consider a decision that might potentially fall foul of this legislation. Therefore, we have the odd situation that the trustees can discuss these matters, but presumably the sponsoring organisation, which does count as a public body and is covered by the Bill, cannot discuss what the trustees whom they nominate should or should not be doing. There is a certain contradiction here, and again I invite the Minister to explain how that will operate in practice.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I will briefly go back to the Government’s own list of public bodies on GOV.UK. Of that list of public bodies, there are 18 listed for the Department for Education, none of which is a university. The Minister referred to overlapping definitions in the Bill. I have been sitting here and thinking about that, and wondering where the University of Buckingham sits in the Government’s concept of where universities lie, because that is a private university but one which is fulfilling exactly the same functions as all the other universities in the UK. Those other universities are, of course, exempt charities and so we are on a whole series of conflicting paths here, with just one aspect of the definition of public bodies that this Bill seems to wish to encompass. I raise these issues so that the Minister can perhaps give us some of her thoughts on these overlapping definitions and where they actually sit within the Bill.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 20th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I want to return, very briefly, to something the noble Lord, Lord Mann, raised earlier. I can understand in the broader sense why universities have been included, because very often it has been universities that have been at the cutting edge of popularising boycotts. They have taken a wide range of forms—and not just in terms of what is sold or invested in. As the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, pointed out, it could be denying people research, not letting Israeli academics come over to speak or whatever. There are all sorts of ways that this happens. So, I understand why the university sector is in scope. My problem is that it is not clear to me how a Bill like this can do anything other than attack academic freedom, which I am interested in defending. I think we have to deal with what is happening on university campuses in a different way.

Regardless of that, the reason it is frustrating—and why I am referring to what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said—is that, if you have a conversation with anyone outside this Chamber, if they are like me, they are worried about BDS and anti-Semitic campaigns against Israeli academics. Something has just happened at King’s College London in fact, where an event has been called off, and there is a University of Leeds chaplain in hiding —all these things are going on. Ironically, if anything, this Bill is too narrow to deal with what is really happening. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Mann, made was that the way wording happens, there are ways around it that this Bill will not deal with. He and I might differ about how we would deal with that—I think we probably would. None the less, given what a public authority is, it is understandable why universities are in here—but, as people have said, which bit of the university?

For the Minister to say “Oh, no, it wouldn’t count, student unions”, would be utterly ludicrous. From the Government’s point of view, even if I go with you, why would it not be student unions? That would be mad. They are part of what the public authority of the university is about, along with research councils and everyone else. I am not trying to encourage the Government to wipe up every part of a university to bring them in scope, but to keep saying that they are not in scope makes no sense from the point of view of the public justification for this Bill by Michael Gove when he has argued for it, and anyone else who supports it. So we do need some clarity here.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, this debate has referred consistently to universities, but I do not want the point to get lost that there is an equivalent problem with local government pension schemes, where a succession of bodies take part in the decisions that are reached. Every fund has advisers, in particular advisers on ESG. The trustees are responsible for the decision, but they are under a legal obligation to give due regard to their advisers’ views. Now, because of the encouragement by the Government, the individual funds are not actually investing the money; the money is passed on to a pooled fund that equally has its advisers and its decision-makers. Somewhere in that thread of control, someone is a decision-maker, but I defy the Minister to tell us precisely, in the terms of this Bill, who it is.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have just a few points and questions, following the discussion we have just had. The first point is to seek clarity on whether my understanding of the last three lines of Clause 1(7) is correct. I understand those three lines simply to be saying that, where the decision-maker is a collegiate body, the duty to have regard applies to the individuals within that collegiate body who are taking the decision. That is how I read those three lines, but I may be missing something.

The second point arises from the comment that the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Marylebone, made about universities. I suppose it is a point that comes up both under these amendments but also under the next amendments and in particular Amendment 8. Paragraph 20 of the Explanatory Notes, which speaks to Clause 1, states:

“The ban in Clause 1 is not intended to prohibit a higher education institution from deciding to terminate a collaboration with a foreign university on the grounds of academic freedom”.


I read that as implying that, other than on those grounds, the ban would apply to a decision to terminate a collaboration with a foreign academic institution. I would like some clarity on this, because I was a bit surprised to see that my reading of the definition of “procurement decision” would not necessarily have included a collaboration with a foreign academic institution as a procurement decision. It certainly is not an investment decision, but is a collaboration with a foreign academic institution in scope of the ban potentially? That is what I would like to understand. If so, it raises the question that the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, raised, of whether the individual grant holder who has, for example, a research collaboration with a foreign institution, is within scope of Clause 1. That is not clear to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

The Minister used the word “pressurised”. Did she do so advisedly—“pressurised” as opposed to “called on” or “suggested”? Is “pressurised” defined in the Bill?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I think I used the word “pressure”. Certainly, I was reading “pressure”, but perhaps I blurred the wording and said “pressurised”. I could equally have used “influenced” or some other word. I was trying to explain what we were getting at on the education side of things.

I have a couple of examples of student union pressure, which I mentioned earlier. Warwick student union held an all-student vote in 2020 to pressure the University of Warwick to fully divest from all unethical industries and release all investments. That included divesting from companies in support of a boycott of Israel, and divesting from international companies that are complicit in violations of Palestinian rights. There was also the example of Sussex University, which I mentioned a little earlier.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a political Bill, a bad Bill, an unnecessary Bill and a counterproductive Bill. As other speakers have mentioned, it is also one of the most incompetently drafted Bills that we have had before us. One example which has been mentioned is that it fails to provide a clear definition of what constitutes a public body, which is clearly a central issue. Can the Minister enlighten the House on a more precise definition of a public body?

There is much to say, but I will focus on three points. First, the Bill represents arrogant overreach by an incompetent Government who are well past their sell-by date. Secondly, even if we were to accept the Bill’s premise—which I do not—it is not just unnecessary but counterproductive. Thirdly, government Ministers, in proposing the Bill, commit the offence that they claim needs to be prevented by the Bill.

My first point is that the Bill is clearly one more example of arrogant overreach. Michael Gove, in opening the Second Reading in the Commons, stated that

“UK foreign policy is a matter for the UK Government”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/23; col. 586.]

I have to disagree. UK foreign policy is a matter for us all, individually and through our representative organisations and those working on our behalf. As free citizens, we are all entitled to exercise rights relating to foreign affairs, individually and through organisations. One of the strengths of this country is that there are multiple locations of power and responsibility. The assumption that only the Government are responsible for relationships with foreign countries destroys that strength. That arrogance was made clear when the Minister, in introducing the Bill, used the word “subordinate” to refer to other public bodies. It is a question of partnership; it is not an issue of subordination.

Other speakers have drawn attention to issues where the views of the Government have lagged behind those of other public bodies. Apartheid South Africa is only one example, although the speech by my noble fried Lord Hain was particularly powerful. I was also pleased that my noble friend Lord Boateng recalled the occasion when together we voted, as members of the GLC, to declare freedom for South Africa and in support of Nelson Mandela.

I add that this is not a question of being right or wrong on these issues; what is good is that there is a variety of views. I am not claiming that local authorities and local government pension schemes will always be right—sometimes they are wrong—but it is the variety of views put into the public debate that is so important.

My second point is that, even if we accept the Bill’s premise, it is not only unnecessary but counterproductive. I am not a legal expert, but, over the years, I have been the recipient of much legal advice about the powers and responsibilities of public bodies. That includes primarily local authorities and local government pension schemes, both of which would be caught by this Bill. I am sure that, in Committee, we will discuss in detail the problems created for such bodies by the Bill, but I will make a more general point in this debate. In broad terms, the law already provides that, when decisions are taken by public bodies, they are required to take account of relevant matters and to ignore matters that are irrelevant. My question for the Minister is: how does the Bill affect those obligations? It either simply restates the law or it contradicts those requirements. My concern is that, at best, it will confuse the position, and, at worst, it will require public bodies, whether local authorities or pension funds, to take into account irrelevant matters when taking decisions, including in particular the views of the national Government.

My third point is that government Ministers, in proposing the Bill, commit the offence that they claim needs to be prevented. The argument here is simple. Michael Gove stated at Second Reading that the Bill

“provides protection for minority communities, especially the Jewish community, against campaigns that harm community cohesion and fuel antisemitism”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/23; col. 586.]

But there is no reference in the Bill to anti-Semitism. What it does mention is Israel, which is not the same thing.

I enter this debate with some trepidation. It is not for me to say what constitutes anti-Semitism, but look at the definition of anti-Semitism provided by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. It makes it clear that

“criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”.

That point seems to have been lost in this debate, with a few speakers saying explicitly that supporting action against Israel is inherently anti-Semitic. That is itself an anti-Semitic claim, according to what the definition goes on to say. As an example of the manifestations of anti-Semitism, it describes anything that

“might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity”.

But that is exactly what this Bill does—reinforced by comments that have been made today.

I have no idea whether my time is up, because the Clock did not start properly, so I will exploit that opportunity. We know what the Government’s real intention is for this Bill, and it was clearly set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi. We know what was in the minds of the Government in introducing this Bill. I have to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, following her remarks, whether she really believes that Michael Gove is her friend in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Marylebone, who is not in his place, said that the Government have good intentions with this Bill, but I do not believe that they have any good intentions with it. It is an example of gotcha legislation, trying to paint those who take different views with the crime of anti-Semitism, which is clearly untrue. As other speakers have identified, instead of focusing on these issues which are symptoms of anti-Semitism, we have to tackle the underlying causes.