Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Debate between Lord Warner and Baroness Noakes

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Warner (CB)]

I have listened with interest to the noble Baroness. Can she explain why the rather talented and experienced Constitution Committee took a totally different view from her and was so concerned about Clause 4? Why is she saying that, in effect, it has got this wrong—that it should not be saying that Clause 4 should be removed from the Bill but should welcome it as delivering the requirements of the Bill? I am rather puzzled.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I have never been a member of the Constitution Committee—I am certainly not a current member—so I simply cannot answer that question. I do not know why it has reached the conclusions that it has, but I believe that they are not in accordance with the impact of Clause 4 as drafted.

When dealing with stopping people doing things and making judgments about whether doing so is right, a balance always needs to be struck. In this case, the Government have tilted the scales in favour of social cohesion. People may think that that is the wrong decision and that allowing elected officials to speak on behalf of an authority in the way that they want to is a price worth paying. I believe that, because of the limited nature of Clause 4 as drafted, it strikes the right sort of balance in this case.

We must remember that this Bill does not stop elected officials speaking in their own capacity, nor does it stop bishops doing so—not that that would ever be an easy thing to do. Individuals in public life can have a big impact on social cohesion, but they are not debarred by this Bill from giving their own views on BDS activities, even though they would have such an impact. In that sense, this Bill is a modest change to the status quo on public statements. It is certainly not as far reaching as people have tried to make out. I would like to get a little balance in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Warner (CB)]

I refer the noble Baroness to Clause 1(7)(b), not just Clause 1(7)(a), which says

“any person seeking to persuade the decision-maker to act in a certain way”.

That sounds to me rather like an individual.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Indeed, but a person who is subject to Clause 1 is a decision-maker. The noble Lord has just referred to the person giving advice or the person seeking to persuade the decision-maker, but that person is not a decision-maker for the purposes of Clause 1, and therefore not for the purposes of Clause 4.

[Lord Warner (CB)]

With all due respect, Clause 4 applies to Clause 1(7)(b), which refers to an individual. We must perhaps ask the Minister to advise us on whether that is true.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

We discussed this very point on our first day in Committee, and I think I have stated the correct position on the interpretation of the Bill.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Debate between Lord Warner and Baroness Noakes

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Warner (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 19, to which I have added my name, and I will speak to Amendment 48 in my name. Amendment 48 is focused on a simple question: does the statement of compatibility by the Minister on the face of the Bill comply with the terms of Clause 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, or would the Minister have been wiser to make a statement under the terms of Clause 19(1)(b) of that Act?

Just to remind the Committee, the Minister states on the face of the Bill that its provisions

“are compatible with the Convention rights”.

It is, of course, possible for Parliament to pass legislation that is not compliant with convention provisions. That is indeed provided for in Section 19(1)(b) of the 1998 Act. But if we adopt that course, we have to fess up to the fact that although Ministers are

“unable to make a statement of compatibility the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill”.

I recognise that some members of the Conservative Party would find it a badge of honour to flourish a statement of non-compatibility with the Human Rights Act, but I would not have placed the Minister in that group, so I am curious to find out what is going on.

First, however, I must own up to my personal involvement with and attachment to Section 19 provisions in the 1998 Act, when I was a senior policy adviser to the then Home Secretary. At that time, there was a robust debate about whether, despite the sovereignty of Parliament, legislation could be stopped if it breached ECHR provisions. Quite naturally, parliamentary sovereignty inevitably triumphed, but there was concern in the Labour Government at the time that they wanted proper consideration to be given to the ECHR when Bills came to Parliament. With my good friend the late and much-missed Lord Gareth Williams, a distinguished lawyer, Home Office Minister and later Leader of this House, we came up with the idea of a ministerial statement of ECHR compliance on the face of the Bill. That led to the drafting of what became Section 19 of the 1998 Act. This provision was intended to make Ministers stop and think carefully about human rights convention compliance before they introduced a Bill to Parliament.

It is quite difficult to see that this has happened with this Bill. Clause 4 as drafted is a straightforward gagging provision. It stops people openly discussing a full range of possible actions they might take to express their disapproval of an Israeli Government’s continued breaching of international law in Gaza and the Occupied Territories. This places the Bill in breach of Article 10 of the convention—the right to freedom of expression—and therefore in breach of Section 6 of the 1998 Act.

That is not just my view—it is the clear view of Liberty, Amnesty International and many others, including many parliamentarians. People cannot see how Clause 4 can be squared with Article 10 of the ECHR. Liberty has also argued that the Bill constitutes an interference with the rights of freedom of conscience under Article 9 of the ECHR, a view that I think is shared by Quakers, given their beliefs.

In these circumstances, I am at a loss to see how the Minister can make the statement on the face of the Bill that it is compliant with Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act. When I consulted the clerk about framing an amendment to delete the statement on the face of the Bill, I was told I could not do that. However, they helpfully suggested that I could insert a provision that after the passage of the Bill, there should be a review of its compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 within a given period. That is exactly what Amendment 48 would do, with particular attention paid to compliance with Article 10 of the ECHR, the right to freedom of expression. If that review found that the Act was not compliant, the Government of the day would then have to decide whether they would go forward and implement the Act, in contravention of the 1998 Act.

I return to the question I posed at the beginning of my remarks. If the Minister still believes that she has placed the correct statement of compliance on the face of the Bill, I respectfully ask her to share with the House the source of the legal advice that convinced her it was the right thing to do.

I turn briefly to Amendment 19, to which I have added my name and strongly support. I will not repeat the persuasive arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Collins. This amendment is an important step towards making the Bill more compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998, but I fear that the Minister’s statement on the Bill’s compliance will not pass muster.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, helpfully explained in his opening remarks the extent to which he agrees with the aims of the Bill but not the means chosen. However, his amendment could open a huge back door to councils and devolved authorities doing what they want in relation to BDS activities, because they would only have to dress up what they want to do as a statement of human rights policy. That statement is not even fully defined as regards what is meant by human rights. This could be a massive loophole. At the end of the day, it would still involve public authorities, including the devolved Administrations, in ignoring foreign policy as set by the UK Government. We must not allow ourselves to get away from the fact that that is crucial. We cannot have public authorities setting foreign policy.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Debate between Lord Warner and Baroness Noakes

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I was referring largely to procurement because those were the decisions that were made by the two devolved Administrations that I cited. I would be very surprised if the FCDO had advice that boycotting procurement decisions relating to the Occupied Territories was something that it approved of, and therefore it was something that it thought the devolved Administrations could do. However, in any event, that is for the Foreign Office, not the devolved Administrations, to determine. I do not think we can get away from the fact that the current devolution settlements give foreign policy autonomy to the UK Government.

[Lord Warner (CB)]

My Lords, I have listened to this debate with some astonishment. I will not raise the issue of the ECHR; we will come to that when we get to my Amendment 48. However, to keep chanting the view that it is for the national Government to make foreign policy seems to be ducking out of a fundamental democratic issue.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Warner and Baroness Noakes

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes]

I thank my noble friend the Deputy Chief Whip for that, though I did not really mind talking over noble Lords leaving the Chamber.

The Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, refers to the 28 January resolution that focused on the desirability of achieving a deal and then the need for the timely passage of legislation for a deal that commanded the support of the other place. I hope it has never been in dispute that the Government wanted to achieve a deal with the EU. My right honourable friend the previous Prime Minister spent nearly three years wrestling with that and her failure to do it brought about the demise of her political career. The current Prime Minister has said that he wants a deal and is committed to achieving one. He has been clear about that and I hope nobody will challenge his integrity on it. This should not be an issue about dealing with a resolution of the House focused on the achievability of the deal. We should be clear about the motives of those who originally supported the Motion on 28 January this year and those who continue to put obstacles in the way of achieving a deal.

Taking no deal off the table, as this current exercise aims to do, simply weakens the Government’s hand in negotiating with the EU. There is no doubt about that. Ask anyone in the business world. Donald Trump, who might not be admired by all as a President, nevertheless had a highly successful business career, for which he is entitled to respect. He has been clear that no deal is an essential part of the negotiating armoury: nobody in business goes into negotiations with their hands tied behind their back or having given away their negotiating cards.

It is very clear that most, though not all, noble Lords who proclaim their opposition to no deal are in fact disputing the result of the referendum and are against Brexit in its entirety. I believe that they cynically use the difficulties of achieving a satisfactory deal with the EU—it certainly is difficult—as cover for their real aim, which is to defeat Brexit. The Liberal Democrats have been admirably honest about their intentions. While they have railed against exiting without a deal at regular intervals, we should be under no illusion that their real aim is to reverse the outcome of the 2016 referendum. Their EU Parliament election campaign earlier this year was explicit on this. Indeed, their MEPs proudly, if that is the correct term, wear those vulgar T-shirts with “Bollocks to Brexit” printed on them as a badge of honour—not an attractive advertisement for the UK at the opening of the European Parliament.

The position of the Labour Party is much less clear. It is not a united party on this issue, but its true colours have been emerging as another champion of remain. Whether they call it a confirmatory referendum or some other euphemism, they want to remain and are talking about campaigning for remain. There may well be a few honourable souls left in the Labour Party who respect the clear message from the referendum, particularly those in Labour seats where the leave vote was strong; they are likely to be the minority. I shall say nothing today about my noble friends on these Benches who share the views held on the Benches opposite. I regret that if they continue to hold their views, they will not support this Government in seeking a deal on the best possible terms. I hope that, despite their reservations on Brexit, they will see that the Motion before us puts the Government in an impossible position, and I hope to see them voting in our Lobbies again. I hope that they are not simply trying to undermine the results of the referendum. I will similarly say nothing about those on the Cross Benches who have been in similar opposition to the Government in their attempts to get the best possible deal on Brexit, because I hope that they too will see, if for no other reason, that this business Motion is no way for us to work as a successful revising Chamber.

Rejecting no deal is about first putting off the day of our exit again and then again. We have done it twice so far. How many more times? Of course, the ultimate objective for those who reject the referendum result is to end up eventually revoking Article 50. That has been the explicit aim of some who align themselves with this and some of those shadowy organisations outside Parliament—

[Lord Warner (CB)]

I say respectfully to the noble Baroness that the speech she has made is one that should be made on the Bill itself when it comes here. We can all have a good go at what people’s views are on leaving the EU, but today we are supposed to be debating a process Motion about how we deal with that piece of legislation, not its merits, demerits and history. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness would bring her conclusions to a rapid end so that we can take a decision on it.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Warner and Baroness Noakes

Thursday 4th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes]

My noble friend makes very good points. I hope that the Front Bench opposite is reflecting on them.

The House is being asked to handle this Bill on a one-day basis and, in effect, tear up the rules under which we normally consider legislation. This has led to a speakers’ list being closed before this business Motion is even finished. This Motion was not available to noble Lords until they came in this morning, so some will not have had the opportunity to put their names down to speak at Second Reading.

[Lord Warner]

Is the noble Baroness not aware that we have had extensive conversations about this? Yesterday, the House of Commons managed to amend its procedures so that it could complete consideration of the Bill within four hours. They expect us to deal with the Bill with due expedition. The majority of the House of Commons voted for this Bill. We are now getting to the point where this House is being exposed to a filibustering set of manoeuvres by the Conservative Benches.

[Baroness Noakes]

I remind the noble Lord that it was a majority of one in the other place. I do not think that the other place can be proud of the length of time it devoted to this legislation yesterday. Second Reading was 55 minutes; towards the end speakers were given two minutes; the Secretary of State had a very short time to wind up. That is not a proper way for any chamber to handle legislation. I would not hold it up as an example to this House, which should be doing things properly. We accept that we can have an accelerated procedure.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Lord Warner and Baroness Noakes

Thursday 15th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes]

More than 20 years ago, I was director of finance of the NHS, on secondment from my firm, as some of my noble friends will recall. One of my areas of responsibility was something we called the income-generation initiative. It was sponsored wholly by the Department of Health which was to encourage NHS hospitals to maximise their assets and to generate income for the purposes of the NHS. The origins of the private patient income lie with the Department of Health wanting to ensure that the NHS maximised the returns from its assets and took opportunities to generate income solely for the NHS. Those of us who were involved in developing that initiative would regard all these discussions as a mark of success of the initiative, as it has generated so much income that other questions are now asked.

I never supported any kind of cap, because the circumstances of individual foundation trusts vary so significantly that any cap would never be effective. The way in which income can be structured to flow into a trust can markedly change the impact of the cap. By structuring your relationships with partnership organisations, for example, you can massively change whether a cap bites or does not.

I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend, because perhaps it now needs stating that you should concentrate largely on the NHS—although, as I said, those of us who started this find it a rather surprising conclusion—and I support transparency. If I ever had one concern about the income-generation initiative, it was that costing was never particularly well understood in the NHS, and, therefore, neither was the net result from the activity nor how that activity was used. It is important to have transparency. I hope that other noble Lords will not encourage the Government to keep any limits which constrain the NHS from maximising its assets for the purposes of the NHS.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I was not going to speak in the debate and I certainly do not want to speak on the subject of the cap, in case I get into too much trouble from my Front Bench. I would like to pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. We are moving into a world in which the NHS will have to look at how it uses its assets. As I have said in earlier discussions, the NHS footprint on its sites and its utilisation of buildings is relatively small given the size of the sites.

We are also moving in a direction where, across the House, we favour integration of health and social care. It would not be surprising if, in the next few years, on some sites of district general hospitals, there were nursing homes run by the private sector which had self-payers as well as state-funded payers. The way the Government are approaching this creates flexibility in how income might be generated. I hope we will not be so prescriptive in how we meet the legitimate concern that NHS trusts should concentrate on their core business, if I may put it that way, that we shoot ourselves in the foot again by having a cap that actually works against the best interests of the NHS.