Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Debate between Lord Warner and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions today and for their engagement. I particularly thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake, Lady Janke and Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord Willetts and Lord Hannay, who met me and officials to discuss the amendments a couple of weeks ago. During that meeting, noble Lords expressed their concerns regarding the financial and practical matters exception and the application of the Bill to the administering authorities of local government pension schemes. I sympathise with their ask for clarity in this area and I have taken some time to reflect on their comments. I will set out why, on balance, I think the Government’s drafting is sound on these points.

Before I address the amendments, I will set out why it is so important that the administering authorities of LGPSs are captured by the Bill. It is not a manufactured problem, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. Administering authorities come under frequent pressure from external pressure groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and the BDS movement to engage in BDS campaigns. We saw a notable example in 2021, when a UN special rapporteur wrote to the administering authorities of LGPSs demanding divestment from a number of Israeli companies. My noble friend Lady Noakes referred to this. The demands cited the LGPSs’ ability to play a transformational role.

We have also seen the BDS campaigners take credit for some decisions by administering authorities of LGPSs to divest from Israeli companies. For example, campaigners took credit for a decision by East Sussex Pension Fund to divest from an Israeli company.

Amendment 27, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, would ensure that the ban does not hinder the ability of public authorities to consider financial risk and impact in their investments in a way that is influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct. The Government agree with the policy intention of the noble Baroness’s amendment, and I acknowledge her expertise in this area.

However, having looked into the matter, we remain of the view that the Bill as drafted does not prevent public authorities being able to assess the financial and political risk of investments. The exception for considerations reasonably relevant to financial value and practical utility ensures that public authorities, including the administering authorities of LGPSs, will be able to make commercially viable decisions. This includes decisions to exclude investments if an assessment of the political and economic risks of an investment’s location could reasonably have an impact on the financial return of the investment.

I am grateful for the contributions of my noble friends Lady Altmann and Lady Noakes, and I confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, that

“financial value or practical utility”

captures considerations relevant to an investment’s long-term value and financial risk, not just its current value. I hope that my clarifying this on the Floor of the House provides the noble Baroness with reassurance.

[Lord Warner (CB)]

I want to clarify something that the Minister just said. Does this mean that, if my local authority pension scheme, from which I benefit, decided that an investment in Israel was risky and put the members’ money at risk, it could disinvest because it was risky, but not for any other moral grounds? Is that still permitted under this legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As I was trying to explain, the important point is that it depends on the motivation for the decision. The Bill would prohibit only investment and procurement decisions that would appear to a reasonable observer to be influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct, and have a territorial element. It would not prevent public authorities making any other kind of territorial or practical business considerations. I have been trying to clarify this.

As I am conscious of time, perhaps we could turn finally to—

[Lord Warner (CB)]

I am sorry, we are getting very confused, certainly at this end of the House, as to what is the issue of risk. If a country—let us forget the names of the countries in the Bill—has a reputation for unrest and uncertainty, the cautious trustees of a local government pension scheme are highly unlikely to want to put their members’ money at risk. Where we have a situation in, say, a number of Middle Eastern countries where that is the position, they would, quite reasonably, in pursuit of their fiduciary responsibilities, not invest in those countries. So they would presumably be documenting that the reason they were not investing in those countries was the risk at which it would put their members’ money. Is that the position? As long as they show that that the reason they have made investment decisions to disinvest from, let us say, Israel or the Occupied Territories, is because it puts at risk their members’ money, is that okay under this legislation?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

To confirm, I think that is what I said a couple of minutes ago. The sole reason must be that it is financially risky—that it is business risk guidance, not boycotts. My own feeling is that that is a helpful clarification. I am sure that noble Lords will look in Hansard at what I have already said.

If I might now finish, I would very much like to—

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Debate between Lord Warner and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I think that it is necessary to make these points within the framework of the Bill.

I will move on and explain Clause 4, which, in its entirety, is an instrumental part of the Bill. It prohibits public bodies from publishing statements indicating that they intend to engage in activity prohibited by the Bill. That includes statements indicating that the public body would have acted differently if the legislation had not been in place.

I will deal directly with some points that I feel are misconceptions. The clause will not affect the statements of individuals, unless they are speaking as or on behalf of a public authority. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, is not speaking for a public authority in her colourful example; I assure her that she would not be in breach of the ban if she were making a statement of intent to boycott. Even when an individual is speaking on behalf of a public authority, the ban applies only to the public authority itself and there is no personal liability for the individual. Thos includes councillors, to answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. For that reason, I reiterate—

[Lord Warner (CB)]

I am very sorry, but I must ask the Minister to address the question about Clause 1(7)(b). If she reads that clause, she will see that it could cover any individual who seeks to influence a decision-maker. That could include, in my interpretation, a journalist writing a campaign statement in a newspaper, asking whichever council it is to take action.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I will come on to decision-makers.

I reiterate that it is important that the Bill does not breach Article 10 of the ECHR on the right to freedom of speech, and I have already reiterated the Government’s support for free speech. The reason the Bill is compatible with the ECHR is that public authorities do not enjoy human rights, as the purpose of the convention is to protect individuals from undue interference by the state, of which public authorities form a part.

I gave a full reply to the committee in my letter of 15 March, and we have already added extra provisions to the Explanatory Notes, some quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, to make it clear how the sorts of concerns expressed this evening may be mistaken. He provided an example where a local authority debated a motion to boycott that was ultimately not passed, and asked whether the public authority would be in breach of the ban if it explained that the reason it did not support the motion is that it would be illegal under the Bill. In this scenario, it is the individual councillors who said that this is the reason they did not support the motion in the vote. The public authority has not adopted the motion. Its statement merely summarises the individual councillors’ reasoning. It is therefore not an expression of the public authority’s intention to boycott. Even in the case where the councillor was speaking on behalf of that public authority, such a statement would be in breach of the Bill only if it clearly indicated that the public authority intended to engage in a boycott in the exercise of its public functions or would engage in such a boycott if that were lawful.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Debate between Lord Warner and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Indeed, in situations of occupation, international humanitarian law expressly requires the occupier—I think this is the point that the noble Lord is making—to the fullest extent of the means available to it, to ensure food and medical supplies for the population of the occupation territory. We expect Israel to fulfil its obligations, and for all parties to adhere to humanitarian law. I am glad to be able to repeat that.

Nothing in the Bill changes the Government’s support for a two-state solution. We believe that open and honest discussions, rather than imposing sanctions or supporting anti-Israeli boycotts, best support our efforts to help progress towards a negotiated solution. This is the position shared by the whole Government. But I continue to believe that it is important to retain for Parliament the ability to scrutinise a decision that would be so detrimental to community cohesion, through primary legislation and subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. I therefore respectfully ask that the noble Lord withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Warner (CB)]

I am glad it was “respectfully”, but I am totally unconvinced by what the Minister has said, just as, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about Clause 4, I was totally unconvinced in the previous discussion about my Amendment 48.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Debate between Lord Warner and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

We are going to be discussing the Occupied Territories in a group two or three later in this Bill and I do not have an answer to the noble Lord on this point today, except to reiterate that this Bill has been collectively agreed. I was particularly talking about the arrangements for regulations which, in turn, had been collectively agreed. I explained the system that when you have a new statutory instrument, there is a write-round which involves all relevant Ministers. In this particular case, that would certainly include the Foreign Secretary.

[Lord Warner (CB)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, can I ask her to take away the point I was ineptly trying to raise earlier? If a public body—we could take as examples housing, health and care—has an investment decision to make on a new building and/or new services, is it expected to find out more about the sources of the money going to be used to enable it to perform public functions and provide new public buildings? Are they expected to go that far?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am grateful for that point, but I am not sure I entirely understand it, so perhaps I can offer to meet the noble Lord or to write to him and make sure that he gets an answer in good time.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Debate between Lord Warner and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Warner (CB)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I am still trying to puzzle out what happens, to take the example of Scotland, if there is a great deal of resentment about this legislation, particularly Clause 4. What happens if the Scottish Parliament, presumably protected by privilege, decides to have a debate, there are a number of decision-makers under Clause 1 in that debate, and they voice their view in a way that is totally different from the Government’s view on that particular country and the issue they are debating? Would the UK Government then wind itself up to fine them? I am not quite sure what the fine levels will be. What if the Scottish Parliament then has another debate and decides not to pay the fine? This does not seem a fanciful position, given that the Government seem to be going out of their way to annoy the devolved Administrations. What will the Government actually then do, in practice?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

If I may, I will come back to that at the end of the speech, because I want first to try to explain what we are doing with the devolved Administrations. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said that the WTO already places non-discrimination requirements on public authorities. Although this is the case, these obligations do not cover all countries and territories and apply only to procurement decisions, not investment decisions.

To return to the subject of legislative consent, I think it is fair to say that we are disappointed that the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament have refused to give their consent to apply the ban to their Ministers and the respective departments and agencies. It is always the Government’s intention to legislate with the support of the devolved Administrations and, where relevant, the consent of the devolved legislatures. We will therefore continue to ensure that the interests of the devolved Administrations, including the devolved assemblies, are fully taken into account. Contrary to the noble Baroness’s suggestion, we do engage with the devolved Governments. I was in Northern Ireland last week, I visited the Welsh Government relatively recently, and my office has contacted the offices of the relevant Ministers in the Scottish and Welsh Governments. I hope to meet with them in the coming weeks to discuss further how we can gain their support for the Bill.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Warner and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 4th March 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 83, which sets a deadline for a review and is essentially probing in nature.

I am unashamed. I want to put pressure on the Government to do something—and fast—about the impact of the cap on senior or long-serving doctors and consultants. We have a mini-crisis here which dates back many months, and the situation is even more serious given the potential impact of Covid-19. I join others in commending the Secretary of State and the CMO for today’s all-party meeting, and for setting out all that is being done to manage this alarming virus—including encouraging clinicians out of retirement.

There is a pension problem. As my noble friend Lord Balfe told Parliament on 30 October, a BMA survey showed that 42% of GPs and 30% of hospital consultants were reducing their hours. There have been similar figures from the Royal College of Physicians. Doctors are attracting substantial tax bills to care for their patients, and are therefore reluctant to do extra sessions to clear waiting lists or to take on management. There are reports that as many as half our doctors are retiring younger than they used to and that the lowering of the annual allowance from £255,000 in 2010 to £40,000 today, and the increase in the retirement age to 65, may well be factors.

The situation is worse in hospitals than in GP practices, mainly because the latter earn less. However, GPs can be caught out if their practice income peaks temporarily because of a vacancy or because a doctor is missing. The reward for all the extra work and stress can be an extra tax charge. This is especially difficult for small practices, which, unfashionably, I have found to be the best, because they provide continuity of care, which saves on drugs bills and hospital costs. However, that is a matter for another day.

That brings me to hospital consultants, who are generally better paid than GPs but are critical to patient outcomes. I will never forget the lady consultant at King’s who managed me through the latter weeks of a pregnancy, when my youngest son refused to move.

The situation is serious. The impact of the coalition fix—to allow people to carry forward unused allowance from the previous three years—is, I think, running low. The DHSC consulted recently on proposals to allow senior medical staff to opt to build up a pension at a lower rate. This was, however, dismissed by the BMA as a sticking plaster. Understandably, it wants a change in the rules. As always, given the noises made by senior politicians, there is much hope—including on my part—about next week’s Budget.

What, therefore, can and should be done? I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords who have been kind enough to support this amendment, and from the noble Lord, Lord Warner, whose Amendment 86 proposes new regulations to ensure that NHS pension scheme members are reimbursed if they are worse off. I look forward to hearing how that would work.

Other approaches might include getting rid of the annual pension cap—the so-called annual allowance—and relying entirely on the lifetime allowance, which has been reduced over time. Alternatively, and perhaps more radically, we could move relevant senior medical staff on to non-pensionable pay, above a certain level, but pay them as salary the notional employer pension contribution that they miss out on. They would have a higher tax charge, but they would not be punished for working, which I think is the concern.

Many very intelligent people have spent hours trying to fix this problem, so it probably is not easy. There are ways to do it, and we must have a solution by the time this Bill reaches Report if the NHS is to overcome today’s growing challenges.

[Lord Warner (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 86 is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Janke. It is a rather simple amendment for tackling a complex problem that is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has said, causing a great deal of damage to the NHS and to patients.

I will not go into the intricacies of the interrelationship between pensions and tax policy, or repeat the data that I laid out at Second Reading about how this is affecting doctors. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has given a reprise of some of that data. There is plenty of data showing the impact on doctors and the NHS; you do not have to look very far to find it. Noble Lords will therefore be relieved to hear that I will not go over that ground again.

The point of this amendment is to address what is happening on the ground now in our NHS. We have arrived at a situation in which doctors can neither control their pension growth nor predict their tax bills; that is where we have got to. Tax bills cannot be calculated until the end of the tax year in which the tax has been incurred; by then it is too late for doctors to adjust their earnings. In some cases, the tax bill exceeds the entire take-home pay that the doctor would earn in a given tax year. We are getting to the point where doctors have to pay to work: that is the situation we have created.

The only way that they can avoid the tax bills is to reduce their work in anticipation, which is what they are doing. I have previously set out the implications of that form of workload reduction, so I will not repeat them, but they include, in many cases, taking early retirement. The serious implications this has for patients and the running of the NHS needs no exaggeration. Suffice it to say that there has been a very large decrease in NHS medical clinical capacity, with very serious implications for patients and the functioning of the NHS. The latest BMA survey of 6,000 doctors shows that even more doctors, in this year and in the past, are planning to reduce their work commitments in the tax year, which is only a month or so ahead. This is why the situation is incredibly urgent.

This problem was so serious that NHS England acted to take the unprecedented step of agreeing to cover annual allowance payments for NHS doctors for the current tax year to try to ease the significant winter pressures on the NHS. At present, as far as I know, there is no plan to suggest that this short-term mitigation will continue into next year, let alone the longer term. It is all very well for the Government to pass last week an NHS Funding Bill, but if there is a serious shortage of doctors, it will not do patients much good.

The Government have been reviewing this problem for some time, but my information from the BMA and others is that they have not so far offered any worthwhile mitigation scheme. All that is available is the option of paying these large tax bills from future pensions by generating a loan against your pension which attracts a high rate of interest and effectively reduces your pension. This option will not reduce the outflow of doctors. Amendment 86 requires the Secretary of State to extend the NHS England scheme on a permanent basis. It also prevents doctors incurring any interest-bearing loans that will reduce their eventual pensions. It has been prepared with the help of the clerks, for which I am grateful, and discussed and agreed with the BMA and other professional bodies.

I am not saying that my amendment is the only solution to the problem—the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has given some other options—but it is an attempt to apply an urgent response to stop more doctors leaving the NHS or reducing their capacity. If the Government can come up with a better solution, I will be delighted. So far, there is no sign of a solution acceptable to the profession that would stop the NHS haemorrhaging doctors.

Let us remember again that the new tax year starts in a month, and that the coronavirus epidemic threatens all of us. I listened yesterday to the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary referring to bringing back retired doctors; that seems to be an important part of their emergency plan for dealing with a potential epidemic. I wonder how aware they and their No. 10 special advisers are of this own-goal lurking in the bureaucracy. We can ill afford to lose doctors from our NHS through a self-inflicted government muddle when a solution is to hand.