Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Debate between Matt Western and Andy Slaughter

3rd reading
Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

This is a bad Bill both in intent and in the methods that it adopts, which are harmful to Britain’s reputation around the world, to human rights, to the proper conduct of state actors and corporations, to citizens’ freedom of speech and to the actions of public and elected bodies. It has nothing to recommend it. It aims to prevent any boycott and to affect the right of public bodies, especially those that are elected, to consider factors beyond commercial procurement and investment decisions, such as ethical factors, which are often also commercially sensible factors. It neuters the exercise of choice by pension funds, employees and citizens. It constricts the freedom of expression of religious groups, trade unions and elected councillors. It proscribes freedom of speech in a draconian way, which sets an unfortunate precedent.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share concerns that clause 4 may contradict the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 and go against the academic freedom that is enjoyed on university campuses?

[Andy Slaughter]

I do not think it is lost on any hon. Member that the Bill flatly contradicts the Government’s rhetoric on freedom of speech in a most draconian way.

The so-called exceptions require actions to be unlawful before action can be taken, but we know how difficult it is for foreign states to have convictions against them in that way. The Government produced no evidence, only assertion, to support the provisions.

The Bill fails every test. It weakens human rights protections for persecuted groups around the world, from the Rohingya to the Uyghurs. It particularly fails Israel and Palestine. It singles out Israel for special treatment. In the words of Daniel Levy, the respected commentator and former Israeli negotiator when talking to MPs earlier today, the Bill demands a lower, not a higher standard of Israel. It does not distinguish between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Singling out Israel and conflating Israel and the OPT breaks the consensus that both main parties have maintained under successive Governments.

The subject of settlements often comes up. For example, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and I raised it in the urgent question earlier this week. Why, at a time when Foreign Office guidance advises against investment in settlements, when the Government have rightly spoken out about settlements being reintroduced in Gaza and rightly talked about sanctions against violent settlers, do the Government try to prevent, through the Bill, any action from being taken against settlements that are illegal under international law? A ban on settlement goods or investment in settlements is not the same in any respect as a boycott. The Government constantly dodge that issue, and they need to deal with it. The signals that they are sending out are entirely contradictory.

I hope that the Bill will be defeated. If it is not defeated and the reasoned amendment is not accepted tonight, I hope that we will return to the issue in the other place and that the Bill will not see the light of day before a general election. It certainly should not. It would be a shameful legacy, even for this Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Western and Andy Slaughter

Thursday 5th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

What discussions she has had with the Home Secretary on the video published by the Home Office that referred to activist lawyers.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on recent public criticism of the legal profession by the Government.

[The Attorney General (Suella Braverman)]

I speak regularly with Cabinet colleagues, including the Home Secretary, and I am in no doubt whatever that this Government are rightly proud of the UK’s legal tradition and our legal profession. We benefit enormously from the contribution of our excellent and hard-working lawyers, and I will always champion our profession and lawyers of all stripes, whichever side they represent, but sadly from time to time there are those who take advantage of their position and abuse the court process. In those instances, to pretend that lawyers are somehow beyond criticism is not only naive, but does the public a great disservice.