Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Baroness Blower Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a flawed Bill that is widely opposed, including by a coalition of 70 religious, political and, of course, human rights organisations, many of which have produced briefings, for which I express thanks.

I begin my brief remarks with material from Amnesty International, whose briefing describes the Bill as being predicated on

“the unevidenced assumption that some procurement and investment decisions on the part of public bodies are driven by or result in antisemitism”.

Amnesty International then quotes from the Government’s own impact assessment, paragraph 60 of which says:

“Without a larger volume of evidence, we are unable to draw definitive conclusions regarding the impacts of the proposed legislation on indirect discrimination for ‘race’ and ‘religion or belief’”.


Paragraph 64 says that

“we cannot say … when or if a boycott and disinvestment campaign incites hate crimes or antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred”.

Others have argued, both in this Chamber and elsewhere, that the Bill might actually tend to exacerbate, rather than calm, anti-Semitism.

Another aspect covered by Amnesty International is the number of ways in which the Bill would undermine human rights. I will list some of them. Amnesty says:

“It would make it almost impossible for public bodies to use their procurement and investment policies to incentivise ethical business conduct that is human rights compliant”.


Surely we would want public bodies to support and incentivise ethical behaviour and practice. Amnesty goes on to say:

“It undermines the freedom of expression of public sector decision-makers who may find that statements of principle are illegal and punishable even if they are not reflected in their public body’s decisions”.


We have heard that from lots of places, and I cannot believe that noble Lords really think that is an acceptable position. Further:

“It undermines the attempts of the UK’s devolved governments to integrate human rights into their procurement policies”.


Other significant points are made, including:

“Businesses making an effort to adhere to global standards such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage”.


The principles were unanimously endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011. They have the support of the EU and the OECD and are referenced in several briefings, including one from Yachad, a British Jewish organisation with which I was previously unfamiliar. I have read its briefing with close interest. Specifically, Yachad says that the Bill

“would breach the … UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights”

and

“could run contrary to the government’s commitments to UN resolution 2334”—

which we have heard about from other noble Lords—

“that requires states to differentiate in their dealings with Israel within its internationally recognised borders and the occupied Palestinian territories”.

This has been the position of the UK, and it was argued in the other place on a cross-party basis.

For my part, I favour boycott and disinvestment. In democratic societies, with the freedom that should confer, boycotts are a way of bringing non-violent pressure to seek to bring changes. Like many other noble Lords, I spent many years engaged in boycotting the apartheid regime in South Africa, and I am very pleased to have done so. Had I been in Bristol in 1963, I am sure that, even as a young person, I would have supported the bus boycott to protest the bus companies’ refusal to employ black and Asian crews. But even those who oppose BDS are prepared to say that this proposed legislation is the wrong way forward. Again, Yachad and the Union of Jewish Students, both opposed to BDS, are equally both opposed to those aspects of the Bill.

As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said, the Union of Jewish Students described the Bill as a curtailment of the democratic right to protest non-violently. Yachad says:

“Democracies are fragile and need to be protected. Using legislation to clamp down on free speech and space for dissent harms our democracy. The idea that we as Jews are somehow safer because it will now be made illegal for public authorities not just to boycott Israel, but China or Myanmar, to name just a few examples, and furthermore will be barred from even saying that they would do so, were they allowed”—


we have heard reference to this—

“makes a mockery of our commitment … to the concept of democratic rights and free speech”.

I am sure that there are some in this Chamber who disagree with Yachad. As I say, it is not an organisation of which I am a member or with which I have a great acquaintance. While I am sure that it would disagree with my support for BDS, I close with a further quote from Yachad’s briefing. It says:

“If the Jewish community wishes to stand shoulder to shoulder with those fighting for their human rights, it cannot expect to be taken seriously when it simultaneously supports legislation that would bar these individuals and groups from encouraging public authorities to boycott states committing human rights abuses against them”.


Like my noble friend Lady Blackstone, I believe that the Bill should be withdrawn. Failing that, it will need very significant and radical amendment.