Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Chris Stephens Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). I also thank the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for suggesting that tone in this debate is important. I see that the Secretary of State is leaving at this moment in time, but I do not think anybody will miss the irony of his projecting himself as the sole moral arbiter for the whole United Kingdom. Even worse, he seeks to quell the just protests of honourable organisations and individuals who are trying to bring about decent change internationally.

In Scotland, we have a proud history of promoting social justice, human rights and respect for international law on the world stage. As the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) alluded to in his intervention, Scotland can provide a very good example. In 1981, the then Glasgow District Council decided to award Nelson Mandela the freedom of the city—the first city in the world to do so. Five years later, St George’s Place in Glasgow city centre was renamed Nelson Mandela Place. Why was that? It was because the South African consulate was in St George’s Place, and the council wanted to make sure that everybody knew who Nelson Mandela was by making sure his name was on the address of the South African consulate. When Nelson Mandela addressed Glasgow City Chambers in 1993, he said:

“While we were physically denied our freedom in the country of our birth, a city, 6,000 miles away, and as renowned as Glasgow, refused to accept the legitimacy of the apartheid system, and declared us to be free.”

Had this proposed legislation been in place during the 1980s, Glasgow would have likely been legally debarred from taking the actions that it did, or even from suggesting that it might take those actions, because the then Conservative Government did not support sanctions for South Africa. I remember as a young lad seeing country after country boycotting the Commonwealth games in Edinburgh in 1986 as a result of the then UK Government’s actions.

SNP Members will be supporting Labour’s reasoned amendment. However, it is missing one key part: the attacks on the devolved Administrations. Perversely, the democratically elected Parliament and Government of Scotland will be required under the Bill to give legislative assent to its enactment. We will be asked to provide the gag that silences our freedom of expression and that of the people we represent.

As a good global citizen, Scotland is committed to the highest ethical and moral standards in human rights, climate justice, workers’ rights and economic development. The Scottish Government will always fulfil their obligations under international law and agreements. The people of Scotland rightly expect that actions in Scotland should be taken with full consideration of moral and ethical duties to communities around the world, and we will not idly watch that good work being constrained.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s points. The Welsh Labour Government have policies on such matters as modern slavery and human rights. Public sector investment and procurement are devolved, yet the Bill’s impact assessment does not consider any specific Welch approaches. Does he agree that the Government should do that before taking any further steps?

[Chris Stephens]

Indeed. There was probably no discussion with the devolved Administrations on the Bill and the impact that it will have on the devolved institutions, so I agree with my hon. Friend. The UK Government claim that the Scottish Government pursue actions that undermine UK foreign policy, but that is simply not the case—it is not true. For many years, the Scottish Government have conducted international engagement which benefits the people of Scotland and aligns with present constitutional arrangements. Scottish Government Ministers are simply embodying the values-based principles of the Scottish electorate, as the Welsh would do with the Welsh electorate.

I listened to the Secretary of State arguing for the Bill, which gave an impression of what the death rattle of a dying Government sounds like. The Bill represents a desperate attempt by the UK Government to salvage something from the wreckage they have created across the fields of international trade, diplomatic relations and human rights. Let us look at those fields in turn.

[Dr Whitford]

Does not the gagging clause in the Bill, which will stifle debate and discussion about policy, fit with what we have seen in the last year or so with the Public Order Act 2023: the seizing by the Executive of almost every power to hold the Government to account, whether from the judiciary, voters, protesters or even MPs, through post-Brexit legislation?

[Chris Stephens]

Let me add trade unions and workers who decide to take strike action. Yes, we know who the Government’s enemies are because they have been legislating against them in the last year since they crashed the economy.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

In Nottingham, we have significant numbers of people, including Hongkongers and those from other parts of the world, who have fled from many countries perpetrating human rights abuses. They rightly do not want their councils or universities to be complicit in human rights abuses that their family and friends continue to experience. Does the hon. Member agree that public bodies must have the right to take a principled stance against, for example, the persecution of the people of Hong Kong, the Uyghurs in Xinjiang or political dissidents across China?

[Chris Stephens]

I do agree. I am going to quote an exchange between the hon. Lady and a Minister later in my remarks, so she may want to intervene again. I have Uyghur Muslims as constituents. I know how serious the issues are. I have Kurdish constituents who are very concerned about the oppression of Kurdish people in Turkey and Syria, for example. I will always stand beside those people, but the Bill will prevent public bodies and institutions from taking such steps. That is a real concern.

The Government are leaving themselves open to a new slogan: never mind the probity, feel the width. Their ability to grow trade is now severely constrained, so they seem to be selling off their own principles to the highest bidder. Previous attempts to work with others in making the world a decent place are now to be put aside. Rogue nations are to be tolerated for the sake of business and their transgressions ignored. The Bill—the dog’s breakfast that it is—leaves them open to that charge.

Amnesty International UK is right to say that the Bill will

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

However, perhaps the objective is not surprising. From the UK being an original drafter of the European convention on human rights, I note that some on the Government Benches now wish the UK to leave that. We would have hoped that the Conservative Government might have learned from their disastrous policy of giving succour to the apartheid regime in South Africa. When the world railed against that regime, the then Conservative Government turned a blind eye, even though we already knew the consequences of appeasement from earlier experiences.

We have learned in the last century what happens when Governments do not have a conscience and turn a blind eye to wrongdoing. We have learned that responsibility lies not just at a national level but at a local level—and, yes, even at the level of the individual. Now we are informed that giving expression to that conscience locally will be penalised under the law. It would appear that the only good conscience is a Tory conscience as expressed by a Government Minister at Westminster.

I ask myself: why are the Government pursuing this policy? Does every Government Member want to stifle local democracy? Every society has its share of people who are mainly self-interested, with little concern for those outside their own circle. It would be good to think that that proportion of society has shrunk as we have become more aware of world affairs. But it still seems to be far too substantial, suggesting to niche voters that principles are costly to us and we cannot now afford them. That is a dangerous game. It is much easier to break down society than to build it up; to make people isolationist rather than internationalist. Patching that fragmented society together again would be a monumental task. But there is good news: there are some parts of the United Kingdom where that dystopian dream is not being pursued—quite the opposite, in fact.

We have had helpful support in our position regarding Israel, for example. On Thursday, at that very Dispatch Box, the International Trade Minister told the House that the UK has a clear position on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories:

“they are illegal under international law, present an obstacle to peace and…a two-state solution.”—[Official Report, 29 June 2023; Vol. 735, c. 408.]

As set out in Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office guidance on overseas business risks, there are clear risks to UK businesses related to economic and financial activities in the settlements and we do not encourage or offer support to such activity. So the Government’s position seems to be, “Don’t do it. We don’t support it, but we’re not going to allow people to boycott it.” That is a very confusing position for the Government to find themselves in. The Secretary of State suggested that the Bill does not stop boycotts of occupied territories, but actually we need just to read the Bill to see that that is exactly what it proposes.

[Andrew Percy]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Chris Stephens]

I will in a second.

I want to make it clear that the Scottish Government and the SNP unequivocally condemn and distance themselves from members or affiliates in the BDS movement who advocate a complete boycott of Israel and Israeli people and who suggest that the state of Israel does not even have the right to exist. The Scottish Government are also committed to tackling all incidents of hate crime, working in partnership with a range of organisations, including Police Scotland. It would be a cruel distraction for the Government to equate sympathy and support for oppressed people with antisemitism. The Bill leads to the accusation that the Government think there are good and bad occupations. As others have said, when I have Uyghur Muslim constituents with children in camps, I cannot support and vote for a Bill that would stop organisations from campaigning against or boycotting Chinese goods on the basis of the treatment of Uyghur Muslims. With Kurdish constituents, I cannot support a Bill that would stop me, or organisations or public bodies, from boycotting goods from Turkey or Syria on the basis of the oppression of Kurdish people. I cannot support a Bill that ignores environmental concerns. Friends of the Earth said that the Bill will

“prevent public bodies from divesting from fossil fuel, as well as diverting their money away from inadvertently funding human rights abuses abroad”.

That is what the Bill does. It will make it illegal for public bodies and local authorities to divest from or boycott fossil fuel companies and those with poor track records on protecting environmental standards.

The Scottish National party—and I believe, the Scottish people—will not participate in this diminution of freedom of speech and disregard for the wellbeing of our friends throughout the world. Earlier, I referred to the Bill as the death rattle of a dying Government. Ministers really should withdraw the Bill; it is a complete and utter dog’s breakfast. If they do not, I support the Opposition’s reasoned amendment and the Bill does not deserve to pass Second Reading.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (First sitting)

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th September 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I declare my membership of Unison. I understand that an individual from Unison will give evidence at this session.

[Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

As per my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I recently visited the occupied territories. The visit was paid for by Amnesty, who will join us later this week.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you. Chris Stephens.

[Chris Stephens]

Q Let me confirm my membership of Unison; that has been declared. I should also declare that I am a member of the Scottish local government pension scheme from my time working for Glasgow City Council.

Talking about green pensions, Lloyds Banking Group says:

“UK adults believe the biggest benefit of investing in a ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ pension is the improvement that it would make to the lives of future generations...followed by the fact it could help save the planet”.

Are there any parallels between ethical investments in the environment and ethical investments in international human rights?

Jon Richards: It is a very tricky area. It is a difficult tightrope that we walk as pensions trustees and pensions administrators. Let us just say that there are no pensioners on a dead planet, so you can see a clear long-term approach to understanding how you need to deal with potential investments, knowing the potential issues. I should admit that many years ago, I trained as a geologist and I was somewhat sceptical of climate change. I see humanity as a very small part of the overall 4.5 billion years that the Earth has been going. I looked at the different overall increases in temperature, and I think it is now quite difficult to argue against the scientific evidence in that context. That is my view; I understand others have not, but I have changed my view over the years.

Clearly, there is a logic behind environmental and a wish on the part of members to do that. I go back to what we said before: we are there to deliver on behalf of the members. That is our fundamental requirement. Clearly, we can see a desire among the membership to do something about ESG, so there is an understanding and a need to deal with that, because it deals with the wider investment and member issue. This is not the same type of political issue, and we wish to avoid, as much as possible as a pension scheme, getting tied into political issues. Unfortunately, this Bill does that to us.

[Chris Stephens]

Q Jon, you mentioned challenges that you have had. Are they coming from members of the scheme or people outwith the scheme? Can you maybe also talk about how members would raise a concern they had about an investment?

Jon Richards: Again, I do not want to get too dragged into this, because whenever you get involved in these, you always end up arguing about the extremes, as opposed to the thing. As I have said, there have been a very small number of attempts where this has happened. We are aware of one attempt where an external councillor sought to intervene. As I have said, there are some areas where investment managers have made decisions that have had an impact on the problem. Members have sought to do so, and some Unison branches and members have also made some attempts, but whenever they get through to the fiduciary duty, that is fundamentally where the decision is taken, and they have not been anywhere near meeting those requests at this time. They may do; people and members may change their minds. At the moment, we have not reached that threshold of decision making.

[The Chair]

Thank you. I have registered two other Members as signalling that they would like to ask questions. Have I missed anybody? No. In which case, I call Steve McCabe.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thanks. That is very helpful. Chris Stephens.

[Chris Stephens]

Q That was going to be my first question, so I will ask my second question instead. There is obviously a debate about this Bill, including within the Jewish community, and we have some representatives of the Jewish community who will put to us their view of the Bill, namely that it restricts freedom of expression rather than directly addressing the issue of antisemitism. I presume that both of you disagree with that. So, would you tell us why you disagree with other Jewish representatives who will give evidence to this Committee?

Daniel Sugarman: First, I would say that we do not believe that the Bill prevents freedom of expression, in that any individual and any private organisation will still have the absolute right to adopt a BDS motion or to carry forward the idea of BDS. We are essentially concerned that public bodies, which receive public funding, are being used to promote a foreign policy agenda that is different from that of His Majesty’s Government. We find that extremely troubling and the idea that it is a freedom of speech issue is—I think for both of us, although I cannot speak for Russell—appears to be extremely misleading.

Russell Langer: Exactly. I will just add something to that. Neither of us would claim that the Jewish community is a homogenous community that will agree a single position on any piece of legislation, let alone this one, but we both sit here as representatives of national representative bodies, and this is the position that we have considered and come to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

Q Do you both accept the principle of a political party stating in its manifesto prior to a council election how it would use procurement and investment policies to incentivise ethical business conduct that is human rights compliant? How would you answer those who have responded to this Committee and their criticism of the Bill that it will

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

Councillor Deering: I did not quite catch the very first part of your question—

[Chris Stephens]

I can say it again.

Councillor Deering: It is okay; I think I got the gist of it. In a way, that goes perhaps not to the heart of the Bill but somewhere reasonably close to its heart, doesn’t it? In effect, it goes to the question of whether local authorities or public bodies should be campaigning bodies. There are some interesting questions there, aren’t there? Of course, in the case of local authorities, their funding is all taxpayer funding, so there needs to be some balance to make sure that taxpayers’ money is spent in an appropriate manner. It seems to me, essentially, that that is one of the things that your Committee will be considering when you consider the Bill.

Personally, I would come back to the objective of the Bill, and I would say, as I have already said in this session, that it seems to me and us that the objective of the Bill is understandable: in so far as the country has foreign policy, that policy should be made centrally, and it should not be fractured into all sorts of different variations across the country.

[The Chair]

Q Councillor Jamieson, is there anything you want to add to that?

Councillor Jamieson: I think that, as with all these things, there are grey areas in this, but as a broad principle, national Government set foreign policy. I think that is appropriate and right. Local government provides services for its residents, and we want them to be the best that they possibly can be within the financial envelope, but we do have a wider responsibility, as Councillor Deering said earlier. ESG is a key part of some of our procurement and investment decisions, and procuring to support local businesses is also something that is really important. We need to be clear that those things are still allowed, but speaking personally, I would not support every local council having its own foreign policy. That would be inappropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

Q Hannah, I think you were present when I put this question earlier. You mentioned the Union of Jewish Students. As I understand it, your organisation and the Union of Jewish Students are on record as saying that this Bill restricts freedom of expression rather than directly addressing the issue of antisemitism, and you are both on record as saying that it does not address the very epidemic—that is, the evil of rising antisemitism—that it claims it wants to tackle. Could you expand on that further, please?

Hannah Weisfeld: I am not sure whether that is a direct quote—I am not sure whether those were our words or the words of the Union of Jewish Students—but our sense is that the Bill will severely limit freedom of speech, as has been mentioned a lot this morning. Clause 4 already gags the ability of local democracies to express their opinions. That is very troubling in a democratic society—the idea that we legislate against free speech. As Jews, we don’t do well in societies that clamp down on free speech, and I think that there is a really big debate in the community about that. There is a very big debate inside Israel about that, and inside Jewish communities in America, where there has been similar legislation.

I think it is worth drawing your attention to anti-boycott legislation that the Israeli Government passed in the Knesset in 2011. Some very mainstream Israeli political figures—people you will know—came out very strongly against it, such as Ruvi Rivlin, who was the last President of Israel, and Tzipi Livni and Dan Meridor. They were all very clear that clamping down on boycotts and doing so in a legislative way does not help Israel and does not solve questions of antisemitism. Dan Meridor, who was the Likud Deputy Prime Minister, said:

“This law helps in delegitimising Israel, and makes Israel look like a country that prohibits free speech. It is useless. Those who boycott are a small group of people. I oppose boycotts, but they should not be illegal.”

That is the kind of sentiment that we echo.

Going back to the Minister’s question about why we do not support BDS, it is possible to say that we do not support something but that we protect the rights of other people to have that opinion. That is a very important principle in a democratic country, and it is one that we—as an organisation that is committed to Israel, committed to Jewish life in Britain and committed to democracy—want to see being upheld, which is why we have an issue with this legislation.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q You have talked a little bit about your concern about community relations in the UK as a result of this Bill; I think that that has been heard. What impact will the Bill have on your organisation’s work in Israel and Palestine?

Hannah Weisfeld: I do not know whether people have seen it, but a letter was sent by 14 human rights and civil society organisations in Israel that went both to the Opposition and to the Government. They were very clear—I think this is very important—that the current political climate in Israel, which people may or may not be following closely, is extremely dangerous. It is very, very problematic. There are hundreds of thousands of people protesting on a weekly basis. I read yesterday that the police estimate is that there have been 7 million attendees at protests for 35 weeks—not 7 million individuals, but 7 million appearances at protests—and there are very severe clampdowns on free speech.

In the last year, civil society organisations in Israel have already faced two attempts, I think, to severely curtail their funding and to shut down dissent against the Israeli Government. What our partners in Israel wrote to the Government here and to the Opposition is worth quoting from: “We know all too well the consequences of shutting down dissent and disagreement. Today in Israel, there is significant civil unrest involving weekly protests of hundreds of thousands of people, reservists refusing to show up for military service and companies divesting their funds out of Israel. This legislation is giving in to Israel’s far-right Government’s desire to shut down debate, protest and dissent.” Certainly on the ground in Israel, civil society organisations involved in protests see this legislation as a gift to the Benjamin Netanyahu Government.

I should add that there is huge concern in the Jewish community here about the ascendancy of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Government and the far right. Today, literally about two minutes ago, the Government Minister for Diaspora Affairs was just uninvited from JW3, the main Jewish community centre in London, because of his opinions and because of his far-right position. He was due to have a tour there at, I think, 5 or 6 o’clock this afternoon, but about five minutes ago he was uninvited. That is the depth of feeling in this community: 79% of people who were polled in July said that they disapprove of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

We have a community here and partners on the ground in Israel who are deeply worried about the direction of travel. What this Bill will do is say, “It is business as usual—not only business as usual, but we will give you a gift, which is forever to put Israel and the occupied territories beyond public scrutiny.” By keeping the clause that specifically lists Israel, the OPTs and the Golan Heights, we are saying that despite the fact that there are now Israelis divesting and dissolving companies and moving them outside Israel, there can never be any circumstances in which it is OK for public bodies in Britain to do that. I think that that is very, very troubling, given that I think everybody here is committed to Israel’s existence as a democratic and Jewish state.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Before you do, is there anybody else? [Interruption.] I will bring in Chris Stephens and come back to you if there is time.

[Chris Stephens]

I will yield to Mr David to pursue his supplementary.

[Wayne David]

Q I am someone who has been on record many, many times as being totally opposed to BDS, but I also respect the devolution settlements. Irrespective of the issue, is it not right for the devolved institutions to exercise the powers that they have without an overbearing influence from central Government?

James Gurd: My understanding is that foreign policy is still a reserved matter for His Majesty’s Government in those situations. It is only right and proper that the democratically elected Government of this country get to determine what those foreign policy positions are. To repeat what I said earlier, this will have a very significant effect in countering the divisive nature of BDS in all corners of the United Kingdom.

We have seen the Jewish community on the receiving end of repeated efforts to pursue boycotts of Israel or indeed companies operating within the contested territories—the Occupied Palestinian Territories—but that has often led to the targeting of the Jewish community directly. This is not just an Israel-Palestine issue; it feeds into the persecution of and discrimination against the UK’s Jewish community. The Tricycle Theatre in London cancelled its hosting of the UK Jewish Film Festival one year. As was cited earlier, there was the case of Sainsbury’s in Holborn removing kosher goods from its shelves due to pressure from BDS activities. This is a problem that has been left unaddressed for too long. There is a clear problem, and I believe that this is the right approach to respond to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

Q James, you said in answer to one of my colleagues’ questions that you believe the Bill would help to solidify international support for a two-state solution, which was a curious statement. The international community broadly supports a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine and opposes the continued occupation of Gaza, the west bank and East Jerusalem. What rights and methods should I and public bodies pursue to press for that change?

[The Chair]

I am going to close the session in two minutes, so it would be good to have a concise answer, please.

James Gurd: Understood, Chair, but that is a big old question. I do believe that the Bill will contribute to wider efforts to promote peace. The UK Government are committed to a two-state solution. I believe that BDS is inherently divisive. As I have said already, the organisations affiliated with it within the Palestinian territories include the likes of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which are proscribed terror groups here in the UK.

To cite a personal experience, I visited SodaStream, which is an Israeli company that makes products that have the ability to make fizzy drinks. It was based in the west bank, but following pressure from BDS activities over a sustained period, it had to move. The factory employed 600 Palestinian workers, who would have received greater work benefits and salaries than anywhere in the Palestinian economy. It had to be moved to Israel, where only 100 of those Palestinian workers were able to continue working. I spoke to some of those Palestinian workers myself on a CFI visit to Israel, and they were deeply unhappy about the fact that so many of their family and friends had lost their jobs as a result of that BDS activity.

Indeed, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority President, is on record as having said that he is also opposed to BDS. This is not some sort of peace movement. It is a deeply divisive movement that seeks to delegitimise the state of Israel. The UK and the UK Government should have absolutely no truck with it.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (Second sitting)

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th September 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Norris]

Q What I would say is that you would know, as a local authority councillor, that local authorities routinely take legal advice about their actions, certainly if they thought they might be an edge case in such legislation. On a fair reading—I would be delighted if I were wrong—this would permit the extraction of such information, which we would normally consider privileged, by dint of a Government information notice, and I wondered if you felt that was proportionate.

Dr Harris: It is important to note that it does not say that the enforcer can demand information that is confidential. All that happens is that the person disclosing will not be liable if they breach a right of confidence. It is not a right to extract the information, or a power of the Government; it is simply a freeing from liability of the discloser.

Dr Mendoza: I would agree with that reading. It says:

“A person providing information in compliance”,

so I think that is the correct reading of that clause.

Dr Harris: There is one, perhaps related, problem for me. Clause 4 states:

“A person who is subject to section 1 must not publish a statement”,

and that can include statements of intent or hypothetical intent. Consider, for instance, a university governing body—senate or council—making a decision about divestment. Let us say that there is a meeting, there are minutes and they are kicking ideas around. They may well benefit from a degree of those deliberations not being public.

The problem I have is that my understanding is that an FOI disclosure would constitute publication. If you look at section 79 of FOIA, it is explicitly called “publication”. This body would be in a position whereby it would say, “Well, we have to comply with FOIA, because we have to disclose, and if we do disclose, we may be breaching the law by publishing a statement whereby we say that we intend to act in a certain way.” It is a drafting point, I think, but that needs to be cleared up. We do not want over-defensiveness in these deliberations by public authorities.

Dr Mendoza: I agree. That is an interesting technicality that probably should be taken note of by the Committee.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Q I have a question for you, Dr Mendoza, and then a separate question for Dr Harris. The Henry Jackson Society, the organisation that you represent, is described as being

“focused primarily on supporting global democracy in the face of threats from China and Russia”.

Does your organisation in any way support divestment in China, particularly regarding the treatment of Uyghur Muslims?

Dr Mendoza: I would say, on that point, absolutely. The position that we adopt with China is very simple. I believe that you have a witness who will be able to tell you about the experiences of her family, her relatives and, indeed, her people in what are effectively modern-day concentration camps, to the point that many among us believe that the Chinese Government are practising genocide against this particular group in Xinjiang. If we look at what is actually happening there—the eradication of their culture, the imprisonment of people for forced labour and that sort of activity—on that basis, we are essentially talking about modern-day slavery. You will be aware that the Bill will be superseded by modern slavery actions and the UK’s sanctions regime on this. Yes, we do believe that there ought to be accountability from the Chinese Government on this score, and I personally would not be buying things from Xinjiang province.

[Chris Stephens]

Q I welcome your comments. I think we will be having a debate about what the Bill actually says in relation to that.

Dr Harris, you mentioned the anti-apartheid movement. Obviously, Glasgow has a history around that: Glasgow District Council renamed a street, gave Nelson Mandela the freedom of the city and, like many other local authorities, boycotted South African goods and services. If this Bill had been in operation then, it would have prohibited Glasgow District Council from taking such actions, wouldn’t it?

Dr Harris: Yes, that is my understanding. As you say, Strathclyde local authority was one of the first in the UK, along with Sheffield, to divest from South African goods. My understanding is that it certainly would have prevented the divestments, and also the discussion around them. There is a debate to be had, on which I have no expertise, as to how effective the anti-apartheid movement was in terms of pure efficacy—in terms of pure pressure on the South African Government—but my understanding is that, were the Bill in place during the ’80s, had the Government not added South Africa to the roster, as it were, by way of regulations, you would be correct. While it would also prohibit perhaps slightly more—forgive me—adolescent campaigns, or ones that are perhaps less well-reasoned, it would also prohibit those that have greater moral force behind them.

[Chris Stephens]

Thank you.

[Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

Q Clause 4 prevents public bodies, and anybody representing them, from saying that they would support a boycott if it was legal to do so. Do you agree that, on the face of it, that feels like a limit on freedom of speech? Is it compatible with free speech for it to be legal to say that you are against something—in this case, any kind of boycott—but illegal to say that you are in favour of it?

Dr Mendoza: I would go back to the question that Dr Harris posed. It is really a question of vires; it is about what a public body collectively should or should not be doing. A public body should not be making decisions in contrast to UK foreign policy on something like a boycott, basically. Individual members—individual fellows or whatever it might be—have every ability and right, still, to say what they like on the subject, but they cannot speak on behalf of their institution or their authority to do that. However, when it comes to opposing a boycott, there are rights and abilities there. That is something that public bodies are not allowed to do, so that would be in keeping with that.

I think there is a clear distinction between the two things. One is something that the body is not competent, or does not have the jurisdiction, to legally carry out; on that basis, what is the purpose of speaking on it? The other—opposing a boycott—is something it can do, because that is the norm and the effective position, in law, for that authority. I therefore see no problem, or indeed contradiction between the two things.

Dr Harris: Again, as I have said, it certainly conflicts with the spirit of free speech, and I suspect also with the law regarding freedom of expression. As I said, the European Court of Human Rights, at least in one case—that of Baldassi in France, which I hope the GLD will have taken on board—certainly does say that a boycott is a protected act of protest. The very interesting thing about that case is that the court said that justification for the restriction of political speech is key; there needs to be a tight justification for it. That is entirely in keeping with the common law in this country, and the political philosophy of this country, that political speech, especially, must merit the utmost protection in law.

I think that there is a point on which the Government are on safer ground. Let us say that they want to avoid the embarrassment of legal challenge—they might reasonably wish to, and I am sure that they do. I would certainly say that the community cohesion point is a stronger justification, and the European court makes that distinction very clearly too. As I have said, BDS, especially in the light of recent events, clearly goes to community cohesion, but it is entirely foreseeable that there may be future foreign policy controversies where that is not an issue and the Bill will still apply to them. That raises the question of proportionality: because it will cover even cases where community cohesion is not in play, is there overreach?

Let me quickly say on vires, because I think it is quite important, that it is entirely right for the law and Parliament to say to subordinate bodies, “This is the extent of your power; you serve the public interest in this way, to this extent, and you use your resources for this purpose.” I think it is entirely right for Parliament to say, as it already does, “If you’re a local government authority, foreign policy isn’t really what you should be spending your money on.” I think it is right to say that to other bodies. However, I think it is extremely provocative for Parliament to say that to universities. This Government and Parliament have done excellent work protecting academic freedom, but there is a second limb to academic freedom, which is the autonomy of academic institutions, and I think it is extremely questionable to challenge that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I am afraid that this will probably have to be the last question to the witness. I call Chris Stephens.

[Chris Stephens]

Q Thank you for your testimony today, Rahima. I have Uyghur constituents, and I have heard a lot about what is going on from them.

I have just got a simple question for you. George Peretz KC observed that the Bill would prohibit public bodies and local authorities from imposing their own bans on, for example, products and services imported from China, based on boycotting unethical production chains that use Uyghur forced labour. Is your opinion the same as that of George Peretz KC? Is there anything else you would like to add before we close?

Rahima Mahmut: We hear a lot about Uyghur forced labour at the moment, from cotton products to solar panels, and much more. But one thing is very clear: no one can go inside the region to carry out any kind of meaningful due diligence. The Chinese Government always have their own ways of manipulating these processes of examination, such as changing goods made in so-called Xinjiang to say, more broadly, “made in China”.

This is a very uphill battle. We have over 300 organisations united as End Uyghur Forced Labour, but we are not really achieving the goal that we would like to achieve. I believe that the most powerful and important outcome would be for the UK Government to bring in a ban on imports from the region, and to spare some resources to control and sanction China. We know that Russia has been sanctioned, and we know the reasons—you can see the bombardment and the people dying. You can see the visual sights. Although you do not see the scenes, my people are dying in camps in large numbers, and there is no investigation or action. I therefore believe that action should not just be limited to certain Bills—we would like to see accountability overall.

[The Chair]

That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions on this. I would like to thank our witness very warmly on behalf of the Committee.

Examination of Witness

Stephen Cragg KC gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

I apologise if the speakers have already touched on this; I did not pick up everything that was said from Scotland. Mark, you have written a very detailed paper, and I thank you for it. One of the very important points you make in that paper is the fact that public bodies in Wales and Scotland are already obliged to follow ethical practices with regard to employment, for example, and need to take into account human rights considerations. My concern is that the Government have perhaps not fully appreciated that fact. This legislation, which will apply—so they tell us—to all parts of the United Kingdom, does not take into account what already exists, and it might inadvertently cut across or undermine existing regulations. Is that your view? If it is, can you say a bit more?

Mark Beacon: Yes, we share those concerns. Some positive work is taking place in Wales around procurement, primarily focusing on labour rights but branching out into other areas. Again, there is some positive work in Scotland and, I believe, in Northern Ireland. We are deeply concerned about the impact that the Bill will have on that work in devolved nations, particularly considering that both investment and procurement are devolved responsibilities. When we look at areas such as labour rights, which are obviously fundamental to us, and at exceptions in the schedule, they are very narrowly defined. They are primarily focused on areas around modern slavery and so forth, and there are references to the minimum wage as well, but they do not go anywhere near meeting the International Labour Organisation core conventions. Areas such as child labour, equal remuneration, the right to collective bargaining, freedom of association and so forth are not referred to at all in there, so it will undermine that work.

Rozanne Foyer: We have a range of devolved policies in Scotland that relate to our Fair Work First approach to commissioning and contracting. We do not have devolved employment law, but we have an extensive range of guidance and benchmarks that we expect all contractors who want to get public money to adhere to. The Scottish Government also has a vision for trade that sets out fair work indicators as well. Although we cannot implement laws, because employment law is not devolved, we fully use our right to implement and use the money as leverage. I believe that is a very legitimate way to create a landscape of better employment rights and good practice, both domestically and internationally, and that work would be severely undermined by the current proposals.

In terms of the other area I think could be really undermined, we must remember that in Scotland we have a Parliament where just over half of the representatives—the majority of representatives—support full independence. It would be legitimate and in the public interest for citizens and members of the public to know and understand what the Scottish Government might choose to do in the context of independence if they had the power to have particular international procurement policies. It is very disturbing to me that clause 4 of the Bill might well prevent that sort of debate or announcement from taking place. At the moment, the Scottish Government are producing a series of papers that look at the detail of what an independent Scotland might look like. The STUC does not have a policy on independence, but you can bet your bottom dollar that we are looking very closely at what the potential proposals might be and thinking about how they might impact our members. I would not like the Bill to preclude the Scottish Government from making us aware of what their intentions might be.

[Chris Stephens]

Q I refer to the declaration that I made this morning: I am a member of Unison, as Mark knows, and I think I am not the only one. You touched on this in answer to my colleague Wayne David’s question, but do you believe that the exceptions that this Bill allows to consider elements of human rights, labour rights and environmental misconduct would grant public bodies and their representatives enough leeway to effectively make ethical decisions?

Mark Beacon: Absolutely not. It is phenomenally weak in terms of the exceptions. If we start with international law, there is a requirement in it that basically violates the UK’s obligations under international law rather than considering, for example, that the activity of a company might be contributing to a violation of international law, so that section is extremely weak. There is a total absence of any reference to human rights within the exceptions there, which is of deep concern, particularly as you do not have labour rights without human rights. Then, for the reasons I have mentioned, the section on labour rights is extremely weak—not meeting those ILO core conventions, which are the absolute basic minimum enabling rights for workers.

The Committee might want to look at areas around procurement and the activities of organisations like Electronics Watch, which I believe Crown Commercial Services is affiliated to, that look at areas like electronics and mining and how you can get better practice in procurement in those areas. On environmental concerns, again, we are concerned that there is that double threshold there: not only must it be environmental misconduct, but it has to violate the law as well. There are plenty of exceptions to that, such as in issues around the pollution of watercourses or around logging or deforestation, where the conduct or policy of a public authority permits that to go on.

Rozanne Foyer: I will not say too much on this. I think that the points were very well made there. The ILO conventions missing is the most disturbing feature here for any sort of credible nod to good employment standards. The fact that they are not there is incredibly disturbing. It is not going to help us take forward environmental agendas. It is not going to help us take forward ethical or human rights agendas or labour rights agendas on an international basis. It is a travesty if we cannot use all of our public bodies to help us push that agenda forward.

[The Chair]

This will have to be the last question as we need to conclude at 4.30 pm.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (Third sitting)

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 7th September 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Mr Barrett, is there anything you want to add?

Steven Barrett: No, because I cannot answer the necessary question because I think that would be a personal and political opinion. I can say that it is lawful and that I agree that it would not breach article 10.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Q My trade union training tells me that if you have two lawyers in the room and you ask them a question, you get at least three opinions, but I am going to try one question anyway.

The Scottish Government oppose the BDS campaign, but also strongly discourage trade with companies active in the Occupied Palestinian Territories—an occupation that was recognised as illegal under international law and by the UK Government. How would you both respond to the concerns people have that the Bill effectively condones what many would regard as illegal occupation?

Jonathan Turner: First, I do not accept that it is an illegal occupation. Many international lawyers will say that the settlements are illegal. This is based on article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention, which prohibits a state—an occupying power—from transferring part of its population into an occupied territory. But conducting a business is not transferring population.

It is not just me who says this. The Supreme Court said it in Richardson v. Director of Public Prosecutions. It said that conducting a business in the west bank does not make the private operator of a factory a person who is promoting the transfer, by the state, of people into occupied territory. Running a business is not transferring people. It is sloppy thinking to say that the settlements are illegal. Companies operating in the vicinity of settlements do not normally operate in residential areas anyway; they normally operate in trading estates outside the residential areas. It is sloppy thinking to say that operating the factory, selling the goods or buying the goods is illegal under international law. It is not.

Steven Barrett: All I would say is that what you think about the situation in the middle east is a personal political opinion. As law, it is important that we get back to a healthy relationship with international law, which is understanding the role of incorporation and your role in controlling the flow of international law into this jurisdiction.

When the President of the Supreme Court corrected this for us lawyers, presumably to pass on to people like you, he speculated that it might be because we are so used to the EU. For 40 years, EU law was supreme here, which meant its being in charge. That meant that Ministers could be told, “No, Minister, that policy is illegal,” or “No, Minister, you cannot do this.” That has been going on for so long that many of us, simply by a form of muscle memory or attachment to that, are used to groping for some legal reason not to do things.

Now the EU has gone. International law has never been supreme; it is not supreme anywhere, and it has certainly never been supreme here. So you—all of you, collectively—need to come to terms with the power and responsibility that you have. If you think something about the situation in the middle east, or if you think something else about the situation in the middle east, you must sort it out. We will use democracy as a mechanism for settling the issues and seeing what the voters think, but that is the system that we have, and it is very important that we operate in it.

Really the only important part of Mr Hermer’s statement, which I saw this morning, is where he says, “You can do this.” Honestly, that is all you need to know. But groping around for just a resolution of the UN, which is a pretty weak source of international law anyway, and then looking at its wording and trying to say, “That means you can’t pass an Act of Parliament here”—no. That is constitutionally eccentric.

If somebody will allow me, I do have drafting concerns about the Bill. I do not know whether we will get to those, but I would like to raise them if I can.

[The Chair]

We are running rapidly out of time, but there is an opportunity for one very quick question.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Q We will now hear evidence from Yasmine Ahmed, the UK director of Human Rights Watch, David Timms, the head of political affairs at Friends of the Earth, and Peter Frankental, programme director for economic affairs at Amnesty International UK. We have until 12.30 pm to conclude the session. For the record, could the three witnesses briefly introduce themselves?

Yasmine Ahmed: I am Yasmine Ahmed, the UK director for Human Rights Watch.

Dave Timms: I am Dave Timms. I am the head of political affairs at Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Peter Frankental: I am Peter Frankental, economic affairs programme director at Amnesty International UK.

[Chris Stephens]

Q Amnesty International says that the Bill will make it impossible for public bodies to use their procurement and investment policies to incentivise ethical business conduct that is human rights compliant. Dave and Yasmine, do you agree with that statement? Peter, can you expand on that?

Yasmine Ahmed: Yes, I certainly agree with that. Essentially, what we see is that the Bill is going to restrict the ability of public bodies—a wide definition, as you know—to carry out their human rights due diligence responsibilities under the UNGPs. They have those responsibilities and international obligations, and what the Bill does is wholly suffocate the ability of public bodies to carry them out.

Essentially, the Bill does that by saying that a public body is not able to take account of the human rights record of a state, or companies operating within a state that is carrying out human rights abuses, except in specifically exempted cases. As we know, and as has been highlighted to you in previous evidence, the specific exemptions have significant loopholes, but even leaving those aside, there are still international crimes and human rights violations that are not caught. I will give you an example: suppose I am a public body and I want to stop investing in a military company that is supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia and UAE that are being used to commit war crimes in Yemen. This Bill will stop me from being able to do that. We know that the Bill will mean that public bodies cannot carry out and adhere to their due diligence responsibilities.

Something that is extremely pernicious from our perspective is that the Bill will have a significant chilling effect on public bodies. If I am a public body, what incentive do I have to do appropriate due diligence—both environmental and human rights due diligence? If I do that and something arises, and then one of the enforcement bodies imposes a notice on me that requires me to send all the information I have about the decision I made, given the fact that the Bill is so ambiguously worded that it only needs to be “a consideration”, how am I to know that I will not be penalised? As a public body, I would not be in anyway incentivised. The Bill runs a coach and horses through ESG responsibilities, human rights responsibilities and due diligence responsibilities.

I know the Government have consistently said that this is about public policy and ensuring that public bodies do not carry out their own foreign policy. What the Bill actually does is stifle public bodies and the Government from carrying out their own responsibilities and, on the face of it, complying with international law. It is totally inconsistent as well with their own business risk guidance and the implementation of their own UNGPs. It is a hammer through that. Anyone who tells you that it is not has not adequately read the Bill.

Before I hand over to my colleagues, I would just say that I am a lawyer who has been working in this jurisdiction for a number of decades now, and I can say that I have never read a piece of legislation that is as badly worded as this. It is ambiguous and runs a coach and horses completely through ESG responsibilities and business and human rights responsibilities. I think it is a very pernicious and worrying piece of legislation, and I am very happy that the Committee is seized of the matter.

[The Chair]

To the other two witnesses, it might be helpful in terms of our time constraint if you could initially confirm whether you are happy with the evidence already given, and if not, please say so. Secondly, could you raise any additional points that you do not think have come out in the first response? I hope that is clear.

Dave Timms: I agree entirely with Yasmine’s comments. Hopefully we will get to talk specifically about the environmental implications, but I would add to her answer the pernicious way clause 1 is constructed and the impact that will have on civil society organisations going about their reasonable activities to try to create environmental or social change. We have heard a lot of the witnesses say that it does not have gagging implications or free speech implications, but the actions of civil society organisations and members of those decision makers are drawn in by the nature of clause 1 and subsection (7), which talks about “any person seeking to persuade the decision-maker”.

This is the state impinging on the activities of civil society organisations that are trying to achieve meaningful social change and trying to ensure that their money, their local authority or university is not complicit in driving destructive human rights or environmental activity. In that sense, this is a direct attack on the ability of civil society to go about the activities we would consider to be legitimate.

Peter Frankental: I totally agree with Yasmine and David. Public procurement in the UK, according to the OECD, accounts for 14% of GDP. That is enormous potential leverage to incentivise ethical business. That leverage is largely being lost because of the disincentives that Yasmine referred to. Let me give you one example of why the disincentive is so great. If a public body—say, an NHS trust—were to decide not to tender with a company in Malaysia, or a contractor in the UK that sources from Malaysia, and source rubber gloves from a factory that had been linked to human rights abuses, that would implicate the state of Malaysia. Under international law, states have a duty to protect, and that means holding companies accountable. If a company is involved in human rights violations or labour rights violations, the state has to some extent failed in its duty to protect, so disapproval of foreign state conduct is invoked. I do not think that the public bodies will want to go anywhere near giving effect to their human rights due diligence findings, because the risk and cost to them would be too great.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I am not going to bring the Minister back in. We have only 15 minutes for this session.

[Chris Stephens]

Q In the advice you gave the Labour party, you said the Bill

“effectively equates the OPT with Israel itself and is very difficult to reconcile”

with Britain’s support for a two-state solution. Will you expand on those comments?

Richard Hermer: Yes, of course. The manner in which the Bill does that is it affords a unique protection to just one category, which is Israel, the occupied territories and the Golan Heights—one protection from being placed on the list of exceptions—whereas any other country in the world can be placed on the list of exceptions and therefore subject to adverse economic decisions by public bodies through the fiat of the Secretary of State or the Cabinet Minister. That power is denied to the Secretary of State or Minister in respect of anything to do with Israel, the occupied territories or the Golan Heights. It is accorded a special status, and that can only be changed by primary legislation. In that sense, it separates out Israel and the OPT from the rest of the world.

[Wayne David]

Q Following on from that very point, your two papers make the point very strongly that the Bill contradicts, or at least strongly questions, the British commitment to international law. Could you expand slightly on that because, as we all know, the British Government are firmly committed to international law? Are you suggesting that this questions at least the Government’s commitment to international law?

Richard Hermer: Yes. I am mindful that we have only 15 minutes, probably now 10. Can I just give you a brief framework, because I think I have to disagree with the outline that Mr Barrett gave you? International law has always been key to this country, and very broadly speaking it operates on two levels. The first is on the international plane. That is our obligation to comply with international law at the international level. Secondly, in so far as it has been incorporated into English domestic law, the Government have to comply with it on a domestic level.

It is the international law level that I flagged up first in my written advice. As a country, we have always played a leading role in upholding and, indeed, creating international law. Both main parties have a proud history of that. It has fallen into slight disrepute in more recent times as we have had some legislation that expressly seeks to avoid our international law obligations, but generally speaking, that is something we can be proud of. There are two aspects in which that is relevant: first, because the Government have contended that this does comply with our international law obligations, and secondly, because the Committee will no doubt wish to ascertain whether it in fact does or there is a risk that it does not. I hope that answers your question, Mr David.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th September 2023 Public Bill Committees

The test therefore clarifies that enforcement authorities and the courts should focus on the evidence of the decision-making process, rather than otherwise trying to determine the subjective motivations of the decision maker. I hope that the Committee was reassured on this point by the evidence from Jonathan Turner and Steven Barrett. Both are highly experienced practising barristers and explained that the test is standard in legislation and that the courts will readily understand it.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but there are difficulties with the drafting of the clause, and one criticism is that it seeks to apply a subjective rather than an objective test. However, will she clarify the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham North? The disapproval of foreign state conduct, which the Bill refers to, includes disapproval by individuals and by public organisations collectively, but it would also apply to individuals in such organisations. Will the Minister therefore outline the Government’s intent, because there is some confusion about the way the Bill is drafted?

[Felicity Buchan]

I will go on to address that, but to give the hon. Gentleman a simple answer now, if an individual is talking on behalf of a local authority, that is captured by the Bill. If a council leader makes a statement on behalf of the local authority, that is captured. If a councillor, or indeed a council leader, makes a statement but is not representing the local authority, that is not captured. The issue is whether it is “on behalf of”.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. Let us be clear: a council leader or any councillor who is being interviewed by a journalist or on television would have to say, “This is my personal opinion. I am not speaking on behalf of the local authority,” and would have to hope that that was not edited out before the interview hit the newspapers or the television. There is a bit of difficulty around this issue. Given the Minister’s answer, I wonder whether the Government could go away and look at the clause, because I think they will find themselves in great difficulty on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Qaisar]

Scotland has its own legislative framework under the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, along with associated regulations and guidance. That legislative framework places duties on certain contracting authorities to demonstrate how the social, economic and environmental aims of procurement have been considered in a consistent manner, as required by the sustainable procurement duty under the Act. For example, a contracting authority is required to include a statement of its general policies on the procurement of fairly and ethically traded goods and services in its procurement strategy.

I have tabled a number of amendments in this group. Essentially, they can be summed up by this: Westminster might have the powers of reserved matters, but Scotland is a devolved nation. Scotland has its own Parliament and its own Government; it is not for Westminster to turn around and tell Scotland what she should do, because that Parliament was elected democratically by the people of Scotland. Devolved Governments, including the Scottish Government, make their own public procurement decisions. That is one manner in which they can encourage companies to behave in a way that is in line with human rights, including labour rights and environmental concerns.

Efforts made by devolved nations will be hampered by this Bill. We heard that last week from the Scottish Trades Union Congress. During evidence, Roz Foyer spoke about the Fair Work First scheme, which gives guidance for organisations seeking an award through public sector grants, contracts and other funding. Essentially, it is the Scottish Government’s approach to contracting. Scotland does not have the power to legislate on employment law—yet—but through programmes such as Fair Work First we have wide-ranging guidance and a number of benchmarks that contractors are held to in order to receive public money.

As I say, Scotland cannot implement laws in relation to employment, but it uses the right to implement and use money accordingly. Roz Foyer ended her point with something absolutely crucial. She said:

“I believe that is a very legitimate way to create a landscape of better employment rights and good practice, both domestically and internationally, and that work would be severely undermined by the current proposals.”––[Official Report, Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Public Bill Committee, 5 September 2023; c. 71, Q113.]

It is unprecedented that the Bill would prohibit Scottish Government Ministers from taking moral or political objections towards foreign state conducts into account when making procurement and investment decisions. A key concern is that the Bill alters the Executive competence of Scottish Government Ministers. Therefore, earlier this year, they lodged a legislative consent memorandum within the Scottish Parliament, as the Minister knows. Scottish Ministers have the ability, to the extent permitted by procurement legislation, to consider the country or territorial origin or other territorial considerations in a way that indicates political or moral disapproval of a foreign state when making decisions about procurement or investment.

An example, which the memorandum talks about, is the position taken by Scottish Government Ministers in relation to procuring goods from Russian suppliers following the invasion of Ukraine. That was the correct thing to do. If the Bill passes it will restrict, if not entirely remove, that ability and alter the executive competence of Scottish Ministers.

As we know, clause 4, which I will refer to later on, would make it unlawful for Scottish Ministers to even state that they would have acted differently if it were not for the provisions of the Bill. The Scottish Government’s memorandum outlines three principal decisions as to why they should not give their consent to the Bill, and I want to outline them. When the Committee hears the Scottish Government’s rationale, our reasons for tabling the amendments will be clear.

First, can the Minister provide some clarity? It is not clear what problem the UK Government seek to address by including Scottish Ministers within the scope of the Bill. [Interruption.] Hear me out. I know the Minister will probably turn around and say, “Scottish Government Ministers have to listen to the UK Government because we have reserved powers on matters of foreign policy.” However, we struggle to understand this. The Scottish Government have always acted responsibly and in line with the UK’s international commitments. Scotland is not an independent country—yet—so the argument that a decision of the Scottish Government in relation to a particular procurement or investment process may be mistaken by overseas Governments for an alternative UK foreign policy lacks credibility. It just does not make sense.

When I join international delegations, I will talk about the good work that the SNP’s Scottish Government are doing. For example, people are quite interested in the baby box—a groundbreaking piece of policy that gives every single baby born in Scotland a box. Please bear with me, Chair, as this will come back to the Bill. When I am abroad and I talk to people about the SNP’s baby box, they understand that the legislation is from Scotland; it is not UK-wide. People might not understand the intricacies of devolved and reserved matters—as a former modern studies teacher I take great pride in explaining this to people—but they do understand that foreign policy is set by the UK Government. It is not clear what the Bill seeks to address by including Scottish Government Ministers.

Secondly, the Scottish Government take a value-based approach to international engagement. I know that because up until my promotion to SNP levelling-up spokesperson last week, I led on international development for the SNP—I will give myself that shout-out. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I thank hon. Members. I know that at the heart of the Scottish Government, international activity creates opportunity at home, broadens horizons, attracts high-quality investment and ultimately benefits the people of Scotland. While the Scottish Government will always meet the obligations placed upon them by international law and treaties, people in Scotland quite rightly expect that decisions should not be made in an ethical or moral vacuum.

Thirdly, the Scottish Government memorandum talks a lot about clause 4 and I will speak about that later. However, I would be interested to hear from the Minister about this. I still do not understand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West said, what a Scottish Government Minister needs to say when on television or giving a quote to a newspaper. Do they have to turn around and say, “I am talking as a Scottish Government Minister”, “I am talking as an SNP MSP,” or “I am talking as an individual”? We need some clarity from the Minister on that.

The Scottish Government, of course, recommended that the Scottish Parliament does not give consent to the Bill. I urge the Minister to take heed. My amendments are all in regard to Scotland and understanding why Scotland has been included in this. Can the Minister take heed and pay attention to that?

[Chris Stephens]

It gives me great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts, who is taking over as the levelling-up spokesperson after this Committee. I want to support her amendments for several reasons. First, procurement is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. That is clear, as we heard in the evidence sessions in the questions asked not just by myself but by my Labour colleagues around the effects of procurement in the devolved Administrations.

There is real concern that the Bill seems to override the devolved Parliaments in this area. The devolved Parliaments clearly and correctly suggest that they would want to use their procurement in an ethical way. The problem that we have, of course, is that witness after witness was saying, and those speaking on behalf of the Bill were saying, “It’s up to the Westminster Government to dictate foreign policy.” Well, that gets us only so far. Every local authority that I can recall in Scotland in the lead-up to the Iraq war had a vote on whether it supported the war. Will this Bill seek to stop that sort of activity? Witnesses said last week that this would have stopped what Glasgow District Council did in 1981 in relation to South Africa.

Half a billion years ago, the land masses now known as Scotland and England joined up physically. They are playing a football match tonight. I am quite nervous because Scotland do not do too well against the lesser nations when it comes to football, as we know, but we will see what happens tonight.

We have to be very clear here. The Scottish Parliament was reconvened in 1999. Devolution was approved overwhelmingly by the people of Scotland. I do not think that the people of Scotland will take too kindly to a Westminster Government who seek to impinge on the devolved matters and devolved legislation of the Scottish Parliament.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

Thank you, Sir George; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I would like to speak to amendment 1 and make it clear that it is to clause 17 but there is an opportunity to discuss it at this time because it deals with the issue of devolution. As is very clear, the Bill applies to the whole United Kingdom, but for it to operate in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, certain legislative consent motions have to be agreed under the Sewel convention. That is because the Bill impinges on at least some of the competencies of the Ministers of the devolved institutions. That is made clear by the Library note. There is an impact on the devolution settlement, and it has to be worked through within the context of that settlement.

Amendment 1 makes the process clear, to avoid any misunderstanding. As we know, there have been constitutional debates, even arguments, between the Government here in Westminster and the devolved institutions, particularly the Scottish Parliament. This amendment simply sets out what is legally the case. It is not a contentious amendment. It simply puts in black and white what is the reality and should be adhered to by all parties. The Government had advance notice of the amendment, and there has been some discussion of it. I urge the Government, given that they are adhering to the idea of mutual respect between the institutions of the United Kingdom, to accept amendment 1. It is uncontentious; it is Government policy. It makes clear what the devolved settlement is in reality.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point. Does he support the position that I laid out, which is that procurement is viewed very seriously by the devolved Administrations and there is concern that the Bill seeks to interfere negatively in that?

[Wayne David]

Many aspects of procurement and other aspects touched on in this Bill are in part devolved to the various institutions. We have a complex mosaic in the UK: the devolution settlements for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are different in several respects. Nevertheless, the overriding fact is that there is definitely an impingement on devolution powers, however they are defined in the circumstances, and the Sewel convention is needed to ensure that there is common agreement on what is being done by central Government.

I refer in particular to the Northern Ireland situation, because we have received written evidence from the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Local Government Officer Superannuation Committee, David Murphy. He makes the point that as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, there is the Public Service Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2014, which effectively devolves public sector pensions in large part to the Northern Ireland Assembly. He goes on to conclude, after having described the arrangements:

“It is our understanding that in the absence of the NI Assembly sitting it will not be possible to obtain a Legislative Consent Motion for the proposed legislation.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Felicity Buchan]

The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that we do not have any public authorities, whether that is Scottish Government Ministers, Scottish local authorities or English local authorities, taking different foreign policy decisions.

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

[Felicity Buchan]

Let me continue, please. I will come on to address a few of the points in relation to procurement and divestment when it represents political and moral disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct. I want to reassure the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts on a few points. As for Glasgow City Council changing the name of a street, nothing in the Bill changes the council’s ability to do that.

[Chris Stephens]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Felicity Buchan]

No, I want to continue to make these points for the sake of clarity and address some of the issues.

Similarly, a Scottish Government Minister could say they oppose the Iraq war. The Bill applies when investment and procurement decisions are based on moral and political disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct.

[Chris Stephens]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I know she is trying to clarify the situation, but I am afraid that those of us who are Glaswegian and proud of our Glaswegian roots are concerned that the Bill will prevent the actions that Glasgow took in the 1980s from happening again. The Conservative Government’s policy in the 1980s was against sanctions in South Africa, and Strathclyde Regional Council, City of Glasgow District Council and other Scottish local authorities decided to take investment and procurement decisions against the apartheid state of South Africa. City of Glasgow District Council was allowed to rename a street and give someone the freedom of the city, but would it have been able to take the decision to disinvest from apartheid South Africa had the Bill been in place in the 1980s?

[Felicity Buchan]

If Government sanctions exist, they continue to exist. The Bill is specifically to prohibit divestment and procurement decisions.

I want to address the point made by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts in relation to Russia. I give her my assurance that we will look to introduce a statutory instrument to exempt Russia and Belarus from the provisions of the Bill.

Amendment 30 would remove the decisions of Scottish Ministers from the scope of the Bill, and a carve-out for the decisions of Scottish Ministers would be inserted into clause 2. It is not clear whether the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts intends for the amendment to be read alongside amendments 15 to 17. Clause 2 applies the ban in clause 1 only to public authorities, as defined in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The clause also carefully defines decisions in scope only as those related to a public authority’s investment and procurement functions, which is the point I keep coming back to. I would like to reiterate my response to amendments 15 to 17 by saying it is absolutely essential that the Bill extends to public authorities across the entirety of the UK. That will include Ministers, Departments and agencies in the devolved Administrations, who have also faced pressure to engage in BDS activity.

As I have said, foreign policy is reserved, so it does not trigger a legislative consent motion. However, as the ban applies to the Ministers of the devolved Administrations, this may alter their Executive competence. We have therefore formally engaged the legislative consent process, and I look forward to discussing the Bill further with my counterparts in the devolved Administrations. The Government are not seeking legislative consent for the rest of the Bill’s provisions, as the other provisions do not trigger the legislative consent process.

I was asked specifically about how the Bill affects Northern Ireland. Given the continued absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, a legislative consent motion cannot be secured currently. It is important that the Bill applies in Northern Ireland to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland benefit from these important protections. UK Government officials will work with counterparts in Northern Ireland to discuss the Bill’s contents and provisions, along with the Bill’s devolution analysis. We are hopeful that when the Assembly is restored, it will be able to consider and support a legislative consent motion for the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Chris Stephens]

On a point of order, Sir George. There was some confusion because of the number of amendments in the group. Could you clarify that some of the amendments we have debated are to other clauses, and that there will be Divisions when we get to those clauses? It would help Members if you could explain that.

[The Chair]

That is indeed a point of order. The remaining amendments in the group will be taken either in the next clause or later, when we come to clause 17, because they are consequential on the lead amendment.

Clause 3

Exceptions

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 3, page 2, line 40, at end insert—

“(4A) Section 1 does not apply to a decision which has been made in accordance with a Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights.

(4B) A Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights—

(a) is a public authority’s policy criteria relating to disinvestment in cases concerning contravention of human rights; and

(b) must be applied consistently by the public authority to all foreign countries.

(4C) Within 60 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish, and lay before Parliament, guidance on the form, content and application of Statements for the purposes of this section.

(4D) Public authorities must have regard to the guidance referenced in subsection (4C) when devising a Statement.”

This amendment would exempt public bodies from the prohibition in section 1, where the decision has been made in accordance with a Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights. A Statement may not single out individual nations, but would have to be applied consistently, and in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State.

We heard on Second Reading, and again today, that the Government want to put disapproval of the conduct of foreign states and their territories beyond the scope of competent activity for local public bodies, in order to stop public bodies taking partial and potentially harmful stances. However, this Bill is akin to using a nuclear weapon to crack that nut. We have just heard from the Minister that the Government are so concerned about the unintended consequences the Bill may have that they are having to reserve the powers to change it quickly later, lest a public body be shut down for a number of months. The Committee just accepted that change, but it is yet another power grab by the Secretary of State and it is heavy-handed in its enforcement.

Amendment 2 sets out an alternative approach. We have been clear from the outset that it is possible to achieve what both the Government and the Opposition wish to achieve but without the overreach of the Bill in its current form. Amendment 2 would allow a public body to produce a document that sets out its policy on procurement and human rights and for that to be developed in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State. This is a relatively long-held Opposition policy. Indeed, it is similar to an amendment I tabled to the Procurement Bill many months ago. It is vital that procurement decisions made with regard to human rights issues be applied across the board, not just to prevent unethical actions against specific states but to ensure that common actions have the greatest impact.

Such a statement of ethical policy would thus ensure consistency in how contracting authorities—or public bodies more generally—decide on such matters, and inconsistent application would be prohibited. The practical effect would be to make it unambiguous that if a public body does not wish to procure goods from Russia because of President Putin’s abhorrent human rights abuses in Ukraine, the law will be on its side. If the same body does not wish to procure services from Xinjiang because of the appalling treatment of Uyghur Muslims, the law will be on its side.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. In our evidence sessions, we heard very powerful testimony from Uyghur society and the Uyghur people, who said that we really need to look at this part of the Bill. Does he also agree that it is very interesting that witnesses on the Government’s side support disinvestment for China, for the very reasons that he has just outlined?

--- Later in debate ---

[Felicity Buchan]

Amendment 2 would exempt decisions from the ban that have been made in accordance with a statement of policy relating to human rights, produced by a public authority. The Secretary of State would be required to produce guidance on the content of any such statement, to which public authorities would be required to have regard.

Seventy-five years on from the signing of the universal declaration of human rights, the UK remains steadfastly committed to an open international order, a world where democracy and freedoms grow and where autocracy is challenged. We put open societies and the protection of human rights around the world at the heart of what we do. That includes our membership of the Human Rights Council, robust action to hold Russia to account over its actions in Ukraine and at home, calling out China in Xinjiang, leading the call for the special session on the human rights implications of the conflict in Sudan, and our global human rights sanctions regime.

We continue to work with our partners, civil society and human rights defenders to encourage all states to defend democracy and freedom and to hold those who violate human rights to account. Our annual human rights and democracy reports are an important part of that work. This Government, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Ministers and officials continue to defend individual rights and freedoms, including through regularly raising concerns with other Governments. Our resolve to ensure that everyone can enjoy their rights is unwavering.

The international rules-based system is critical to protecting and realising the human rights and freedoms of people all over the world. We work through the multilateral system to encourage all states to uphold their international human rights obligations and to hold those who violate human rights to account. We are all in agreement that human rights abuses have no place in public supply chains.

I am concerned, however, that this amendment would give public authorities too much discretion to apply blanket boycotts. I also believe that the amendment is unnecessary because of the work that the Government are already doing in the Procurement Bill, which I will address in more detail.

The Procurement Bill already contains a robust regime for the exclusion of suppliers that are unfit to hold public contracts. That Bill sets out a wide range of exclusion grounds that target the most serious risks to public procurement, including modern slavery and human trafficking. The Cabinet Office has strengthened the way in which these terms are defined, so that suppliers may be excluded where there is sufficient evidence that they are responsible for abuses anywhere in the world, whether or not they have been convicted of an offence.

We have mirrored in this Bill the exclusion grounds in the Procurement Bill that pose the most significant risk to public procurement as exceptions to the ban, including for modern slavery and human trafficking. This means that public authorities will be allowed to make a territorial consideration that is influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct in so far as it relates to one of the considerations listed in the schedule.

Moreover, there is guidance to help contracting authorities to address human rights risks, and there is well-established practice throughout the procurement process. That detailed and thorough guidance includes sections on managing risks from new procurements and assessing existing contracts, taking action when victims of modern slavery or human rights abuses are identified, and supply chain mapping, and it includes useful tools and training.

For the reasons that I have set out, this amendment is unnecessary, but I am also concerned that it would give authorities too broad a discretion to apply blanket boycotts. The amendment would allow authorities to exclude suppliers from entire nations without proper consideration of whether a supplier itself had had any involvement in the abuse. To exclude suppliers based solely on where they are located conflicts with the open principles of our procurement regime and would in some cases be contrary to the UK’s international obligations, such as non-discrimination requirements set out in the World Trade Organisation agreement on Government procurement.

As I have previously stated, foreign policy is a matter for the UK Government and not an issue for public bodies. It is not appropriate for public bodies to be producing their own policies on human rights in relation to other nations. This amendment would undermine the intentions of the Bill, leaving public authorities distracted by questions and debate about their human rights statements and the foreign policy that lies behind that. Many public authorities with no interest or expertise in such debates would come under pressure to produce statements or to explain why they did not have one. The discretion for public authorities, even acting within Government guidance, would mean a multitude and divergence of foreign policies across our public institutions and a confusing picture on the international stage of what the elected Government’s foreign policy was. My concern is that, were this amendment to be agreed to, every local authority and public body would feel the need to produce such a statement even though they felt that they had no expertise in human rights. I am concerned that it would increase the level of dissension and community friction rather than in any way lessening it.

I just want to clarify that nothing in this Bill affects private individuals and private companies and their ability, clearly, to boycott or divest.

[Chris Stephens]

That is the double standard in the Bill: private companies can do what they like, but public bodies cannot. If I understand the Minister’s line of argument, she is concerned that this amendment could be used or abused by local authorities, but proposed new subsection (4C) specifically gives the Government the power to stop any blanket boycott. That somewhat negates her arguments.

Lastly, does the Minister agree with the position of any local authority that wishes to disinvest from China and Xinjiang in particular because of its treatment of the Uyghur Muslims?

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

In its present form, the Bill will introduce a blanket prevention of public authorities’ ability to take into account human rights—the Government would say foreign policy—when making certain decisions. There can be exceptions; we have heard the Government mention Belarus and Russia. Yet for Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights to be exempted, it is not enough for a Secretary of State to bring forward a statutory instrument; primary legislation will be required.

We have a fundamental problem with the clause, which is the conflation of Israel with the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights. Israel is a sovereign state; the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights are areas that have been occupied since 1967, and the occupation is deemed illegal under international law. In fact, it is not simply international law; the Government themselves have—until now, it seems—held that position very firmly. Let me quote from a fairly innocuous document, the Government’s guidance on overseas business risk, which was only published in February 2022:

“The UK has a clear position on Israeli settlements: The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights have been occupied by Israel since 1967. Settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

That has been the Government’s position, clearly and consistently expressed.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman presents a very powerful position. Members on the Opposition Benches have been told by the Government that the Bill should comply with Foreign Office policy. It seems that the Government are now deviating from Foreign Office policy. It should not be one rule for the Government and one rule for every other public body, should it?

[Wayne David]

There might well be something in what the hon. Gentleman suggests. There is, to be honest, a not-too-subtle change in the Government’s emphasis and in their exposition on this matter. Equating Israel and the occupied territories is unique in any British legislation, let alone any Government statement; it questions the long-standing position of the United Kingdom supporting a two-state solution based on 1967 lines.

There is also the question of international law. In his first written submission to the Committee, Richard Hermer KC cited the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice concerning the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. In his second written submission, he also made reference to the United Nations.

I respectfully remind the Committee that the UK is a founding signatory of the charter of the United Nations and is obliged to comply with Security Council resolutions. Security Council resolution 2334 very clearly expresses the concern about Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories; I want to emphasise that point. Operative paragraph 1 of the resolution states very clearly that the Security Council

“Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace”.

Operative paragraph 5 imposes an international-law obligation on all states to ensure that they treat the OPT differently from Israel. It states that the Security Council

“Calls upon all States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967”.

In summation, clause 3(7) is incompatible with international law, for two very solid, basic reasons. First, it gives special protection to goods and services from both Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Moreover, it gives greater protection to illegal settlements in the OPT than it does to any other state in the world except Israel. That is quite incredible. If that does not suggest a change in Government policy, what on earth would? It seriously draws into question the Government’s commitment to international law—if that doesn’t, I don’t know what does.

Secondly, clause 3(7) fails to differentiate between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I do not want particularly to be in this Committee to make history: I want the Government to say, “Yes, we are being consistent. We have said this all along. We are not nudging Parliament to a change in policy. We are reaffirming where we stand.” That is the right decision to make. I am pleased to say that there has been genuine consensus in Parliament on the issue of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I do not want to see that consensus being weakened, and I certainly do not want to see it being shattered. I fear that this legislation is the thin end of the wedge.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th September 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment 6, in clause 3, page 3, line 11, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).

This amendment removes the existing stipulation that the power to exempt a country or territory from section 1 may not be used in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the Occupied Golan Heights.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The amendments were tabled by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. We are discussing the part of the Bill that got the most comment on Second Reading. It had the most written submissions and witness statements, and considerable time was spent on this issue during the evidence sessions.

The hon. Member is trying to improve the Bill, which is a dog’s breakfast, so it is sometimes difficult to come up with the requisite amendments to try to sort it out. [Interruption.] If anybody wants to make an intervention, I am more than happy to take one. We are trying to amend the Bill so that it is acceptable to everyone. May I remind everyone that a number of Conservative Members were very exercised about this part of the Bill on Second Reading? We need to spend some time on this proposal to see whether we can come up with solutions, because there are real problems with clause 3(7) remaining in the Bill.

I remind Members of the exchange I had with the hon. Member for Caerphilly. It looks like we have a UK Government who want all public bodies to comply with their Foreign Office policy, but this area of the Bill appears to be in defiance of that policy. Why do I say that? Only a couple of days before Second Reading, Foreign Office Ministers made the position very clear during Foreign Office questions: they viewed the occupied territories as being illegal under international law. However, it is now being suggested in the Bill that a public body will not be able to disinvest from or boycott the occupied territories or the Golan Heights. There is a contradiction there, and the Government really need to look at that. It looks as though they are changing their Foreign Office policy through a piece of domestic legislation, and that is not the appropriate place to do it.

I sympathise with what the Trades Union Congress said about this issue: the Government are getting themselves into all sorts of difficulties. For example, they will be aware that the International Criminal Court has opened an investigation into the situation in Palestine, which covers crimes that are alleged to have been committed since 2014. Under their statute, the UK Government have obligations under that investigation, and there is a real concern that they are not acting consistently to uphold international law in this regard. There are real concerns that the situation, whereby Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories and the Syrian Golan Heights for more than 50 years, is in violation of international law and, significantly, numerous UN resolutions. The UN resolutions are important; a Foreign Office Minister referred to them prior to Second Reading.

I remind the Committee that in presenting the Second Reading, the Minister and the Secretary of State made their position clear. As is stated in the Hansard reports of those debates, they said that they thought the Bill would not impact on the UK Government’s position in relation to the occupied territories and the Golan Heights. But I am afraid that my reading of the situation, which is shared by many others, is that that is exactly what it does. I will support amendments 5 and 6.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I draw the Committee’s attention, as I did in the evidence sessions, to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I will not take up too much of the Committee’s time, but a point needs to be made on this important amendment and to be heard time and again. It relates to why Israel should be so significantly named, as apart from any other territory or country, in the Bill. For a start, Israel is a democracy in the middle east—a quite rare democracy in that region—the democratic values of which we need to seek to uphold.

More fundamentally, we should ask ourselves what the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement is. In the written and oral evidence given to the Committee, we heard clearly not that the movement is just a little bit against Israel—it does not just have some sort of mild disagreement with Israel or the Government of the day in Israel—but that the leaders of the BDS movement explicitly talk about wanting the destruction of the state of Israel. Israel is the target of the BDS movement. Its leaders have repeatedly rejected a two-state solution, which has broad agreement across all the political parties here in the United Kingdom and in many other democracies around the world. The co-founder of the Palestinian BDS National Committee explicitly goes further, and states his opposition to Israel’s right to exist as a state of the Jewish people.

That is why we need such explicit recognition in the Bill, which I hope will go on to become an Act. It will protect our allies in Israel and stop the malign forces in the BNC membership, which includes a coalition of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—organisations that we in the United Kingdom proscribe. That is why I will vote against the amendments and seek to see the Bill pass through the Committee unamended.

--- Later in debate ---

Exceptions

[Chris Stephens]

I beg to move amendment 18, in the schedule, page 13, line 5, at end insert—

“(2) Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in breaching international law, where that breach of international law is directly related to the decision.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 14, in the schedule, page 15, line 29, at end insert—

“11 (1) Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as it relates to genocide.

(2) That includes a consideration related to the possibility of genocide having taken place or taking place in the future.

(3) In this paragraph, ‘genocide’ has the same meaning as in the International Criminal Court Act 2001.”

This amendment adds genocide as an exemption to the application of section 1.

Amendment 19, in the schedule, page 15, line 29, at end insert—

“11 Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in the crime of genocide as determined under international law, where that crime of genocide is directly related to the decision.”

Amendment 20, in the schedule, page 15, line 29, at end insert—

“11 Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in the crime of ethnic cleansing as determined under international law, where that ethnic cleansing is directly related to the decision.”

Amendment 21, in the schedule, page 15, line 29, at end insert—

“11 Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in the crime of apartheid as determined under international law, where that crime of apartheid is directly related to the decision.”

That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.

[Chris Stephens]

I rise to speak to speak to amendments 18 to 21; we support amendment 14. The provisions of clause 1 are referred to in part 2 of the schedule under “International law” and consideration given to the possibility of the United Kingdom being

“in breach of its obligations under international law.”

The Bill’s constraints are therefore relaxed to deal with those circumstances. I hope that the Committee has a unanimous view that a person or body engaged in breaching international law should not gain any financial, economic or other reward from such breaches. Amendment 18 would embed that view into the Bill. That is why I and my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts tabled it.

Regarding genocide, my colleagues and I refer the Committee to a lengthy list of countries identified by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office as human rights priority countries, several of which stand accused of genocide. The Bill would be improved by recognising that crime and the need for the international community, including the United Kingdom, to act against it when and where it has occurred. I therefore commend amendment 19 to the Committee. For broadly the same reasons, it is appropriate that we introduce amendments dealing with ethnic cleansing as well.

Regarding apartheid, I referred earlier in the debate to Scotland’s concerted fight against apartheid in South Africa. Sadly, that crime was not eradicated with the fall of that racist regime, and it has reappeared around the globe many times since then. I believe that the Conservative party was on the wrong side of history when it came to take a stand on apartheid South Africa; with this Bill, it appears to be choosing to continue that shameful legacy. We must learn from the past and make decisions for a better future. I therefore commend the amendments in my name, and in the name of my hon. Friend, to the Committee.

[Wayne David]

I rise to speak to speak to amendment 14. As we have heard, this Bill is not country or nation specific. It applies as much to Myanmar, North Korea and China as it does to Israel. The Government say there will be exemptions; Belarus and Russia have been mentioned, but unfortunately no others, and that is one of the profound weaknesses in the Bill. There are also other non-nation exemptions—financial and practical matters, bribery, competition law infringements, the environment and so on—but, crucially, there is no reference to genocide.

In June, 19 leading Uyghurs wrote a letter to The Times in which they expressed their serious concerns about the Bill. Last week, we heard evidence from the UK director of the World Uyghur Congress. In what I thought was a very moving session, the director told us that she strongly opposed the Bill and made it clear that it was not just her own view, but the view of the entire Uyghur community she represented.

There can be no doubt that the Uyghur minority in China are victims of grave and systematic human rights abuses. The Government have correctly described these abuses as “barbarism”. The UN has said that the crimes may well constitute crimes against humanity, and the US Administration have said that what we are seeing is genocide. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Government accept the amendment, and in so doing demonstrate that they stand foursquare behind the Uyghur community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

I am afraid we are not convinced by the Minister’s reply, and we will push some amendments to a vote. The amendments themselves refer to international law. Indeed, the Labour party’s amendment 14 defines genocide as having the same meaning as described under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, so that should allay some of the fears voiced by Government Members. For completeness and tidiness, I will push amendments 18, 20 and 21 to a vote and I will yield amendment 19—

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I have an absolutely simple question. I do not know whether the hon. Member knows the answer, but I have been wondering about this. I do not think any of us here would object to the idea of having some genocide provision, and I am conscious that my colleagues have referred to the International Criminal Court. Does the hon. Member know whether the situation affecting the Uyghurs at the present time would be caught by that provision?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

I cannot give my good friend a definitive answer to that, but it certainly should be looked at. We could argue that what is happening is also ethnic cleansing. As the hon. Member knows, I have reiterated this a number of times. I have Uyghur Muslim constituents and their situation is very difficult. I end up in tears when they tell me what is going on in China. I am in tears when they tell me that they are trying to get family members here so that they can have some sort of a family reunion. Certainly somebody should look at whether it is ethnic cleansing or genocide. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.

I wish to push amendments 18, 20 and 21 to a vote, and I will yield to Labour colleagues if they wish to push amendment 14 to a vote.

[Wayne David]

Yes, we will be pushing amendment 14 to a vote. On the legal basis, we have expressed an opinion here, but of course the Government have constant legal advice during the passage of a Bill, and sometimes that legal advice is changed or modified in the light of representations and circumstances. I hope that that will happen here and that the Government will accept the need for definitions to be provided, provided we can unite around the objective of ensuring the word “genocide” is included.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I could call the hon. Gentleman my hon. Friend because we co-operate on many issues. As representatives we can speak out and ask for a change in the law, but it is not right for us to lobby organisations, individuals and public bodies to break the law. That is what is covered in the clauses. With respect, I think the wording could be cleverer or better. I am one of those individuals who passionately believes in free speech. I passionately believe that people in a democracy and elsewhere should be allowed to say what they believe. I share the sentiments expressed on Second Reading by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who has fought the British National party. Whenever we see extreme views with which we all disagree, we need to expose them in public and defeat them in an argument, rather than push them underground. My clear concern is that people could undermine community cohesion inadvertently. They probably would not mean to do so. There is no issue with making statements and having debates in councils, Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. The issue is one of breaching the law in terms of procurement, including of goods and services.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous. Does he not concede that there is a real problem with the language in clause 4(1)(b), which states

“that the person would intend to act in such a way were it lawful to do so”?

That is a rather baffling sentence, is it not?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, but that is what I have said. In due course, perhaps on Report, the language may need to be tidied up. However, the intention is clear. The decision maker should not be saying, “If I was able to do it, I would make this decision.” I do not think it helps the public body or decision making if primary legislation passed through this House says that that would be unlawful. That would not help community cohesion and it would not protect public bodies against being accused of making decisions based on particular views rather than on their coherent procurement needs. I will conclude with that.

[Chris Stephens]

I know you are a seasoned political veteran, Sir George—it is always clause 4 that causes a problem, isn’t it? It is always clause 4, and the problem with this clause 4 is that it is the thought police clause. The difference is—[Interruption.] I have been rehearsing that one. I made that wisecrack privately to Sir George the other day, so yes. But this is the thought police clause. The normal police come for someone if they commit an act that is criminal, but the thought police are different. They act if someone “intends” to act in a particular way. Under the Bill, the authorities do not need to demonstrate any proof of intent to publish a particular kind of statement. That is impossible to do in the normal world, so let us just rely on telepathy to find out someone’s intent.

It gets worse, and I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East for taking my intervention. In clause 4, entitled “Related prohibition on statements”, subsection (1)(b) proposes that even

“were it lawful to do so”,

any alleged intent to do so would be a criminal act. You need only consult George Orwell on this, Sir George—prove me wrong if you can—because he says, “Yes, this is the Thinkpol, whose job is to monitor the citizens of Oceania and arrest all those who have committed thoughtcrime in challenge to the status quo authority of the Party and the regime of Big Brother.” Fortunately, there is an escape clause for the Government in clause 4, which states:

“This section does not apply to a statement by a Minister of the Crown”.

Lucky them—but not anybody else.

The convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, better known as the European convention on human rights, was opened for signature in Rome on 4 November 1950—only two years after George Orwell published his book “1984”. The world had just come through a period in which freedom of expression had been brutally suppressed. The ECHR, to which the UK is still a signatory, defines freedom of expression thus:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

The purpose of the Bill is therefore to break an international convention and undermine a fundamental human right. Why would any Government do that? Is it because this is the red meat that the Tory party is throwing to people—a policy that actively restricts moral and political freedom of expression on human rights, environmental protections and workers’ rights? Are they playing to a narrow audience with dog-whistle policies? We can end this dystopian farce here and now.

Witness after witness, even the witnesses who support the Bill and support the Government’s position on the Bill, said—all of them—that they had difficulties with this clause and how it could possibly be enacted and enforced. We need to take account of that, and I ask the House to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts. If not, we certainly need to remove clause 4.

[Felicity Buchan]

I shall start by explaining why we do not support amendment 24, and I will then explain why we feel strongly that clause 4 needs to stand part of the Bill. I will address a few of the specific questions, but I will do so at the end, because I think it is important that hon. Members see the logical flow of the argument.

Amendment 24 seeks to ensure that none of the provisions in clause 4 will conflict with the Human Rights Act 1998. This amendment is unnecessary, as the Government’s assessment is that all the provisions in the Bill are consistent with the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights, including article 10, the right to freedom of expression.

The purpose of the European convention on human rights, which the Human Rights Act implemented into domestic law, is to regulate the relationship between the state and the individual and specifically to protect private persons’ fundamental rights from potential interference by the state. This includes private persons’ article 10 right to freedom of expression. Public authorities, which form part of the state or perform the state’s functions, are the potential perpetrators of ECHR violations and therefore do not have these rights. Public authorities do not have the rights; the rights are to protect private individuals and private bodies against state interference. This assessment was supported by several of the witnesses that the Committee heard from last week, and that is why we believe that the amendment is unnecessary.

Clause 4 prohibits public bodies from publishing statements indicating that they intend to engage in activity prohibited by this Bill. That includes statements indicating that the public body would have acted differently were the legislation not in place. It is important that we focus on public bodies, because this does not restrict the rights of individuals. We talked earlier about the difference, and the simplest way to express that is that if an individual is speaking on their own behalf, they are speaking as a private individual. However, if I say that I am speaking on behalf of my university or my local authority, then I speak on the behalf of a public body.

Academic freedom has been mentioned. If I am a university professor, which I am highly unlikely ever to be, I can say whatever I want. If, however, I stand up and say, “I, Felicity Buchan, speaking on behalf of Imperial College,” which is in my constituency, that is representing the view of Imperial College, as opposed to that of Felicity Buchan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Felicity Buchan]

The Bill is not distinguishing between personas, individual or public. It is a sentiment that I am giving as an individual, as opposed to doing so as leader of my council or head of my university, representing my university. It is about the distinction between the individual and the public body.

I am coming to the end of my remarks. We will put that distinction into very clear guidance in the explanatory notes.

[Chris Stephens]

It is important that we get to the bottom of this. There is a real enforcement difficulty here. Some newspapers are not always friendly to my party, some are not friendly to the Labour party, and some, believe it or not, are not friendly to the Conservative party. A newspaper could come up with a scenario in which it was quoting someone directly and giving the impression that that was their view on behalf of a public body, without expressing that that person was speaking in a personal capacity. That is a real difficulty. Of course, the other difficulty is that the Felicity Buchan we are referring to is a Minister of the Crown, so anything that Felicity Buchan says is completely exempt under the clause.

[Felicity Buchan]

On the point about what a newspaper may or may not infer, clearly for there to be enforcement it needs to be proved. We will go on to talk about enforcement later, but I think there is a clear distinction between stating something in a personal capacity and representing one’s institution. On that basis, I recommend that the amendment be rejected and that clause 4 stand part of the Bill.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 14th September 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 7, page 5, line 8, leave out

“, or is about to make”.

This amendment, together with Amendments 26, 27, 28 and 29, would remove the ability of information notices and compliance notices to be given to public bodies prior to an actual contravention of the ban.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 26, in clause 7, page 5, line 12, leave out

“, or is likely to contravene”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 25.

Amendment 27, in clause 7, page 5, line 15, leave out

“, or is about to publish,”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 25.

Amendment 28, in clause 7, page 5, line 18, leave out

“, or is likely to contravene,”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 25.

Amendment 29, in clause 8, page 6, line 6, leave out

“, or is likely to contravene”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 25.

[Chris Stephens]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Caroline.

In considering this clause, we will continue some of the debates we had on clause 4 on Tuesday. We have heard many similar views from a range of parties that the Bill is an unethical attempt to stifle freedom of expression and legitimate concerns of councils and other publicly funded bodies. They will face significant fines for being about to, or likely to, associate with international norms of behaviour. And who will be empowered to conduct investigations into those suspected breaches? Why, it will be UK Government Ministers themselves who are granted that authority! There go freedom of expression and the rule of law. I ask Members to support the SNP amendments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)]

Amendments 25 to 29 would remove enforcement authorities’ power to give information notices and compliance notices in anticipation of a contravention of the ban.

First and foremost, the powers given to enforcement authorities to be used before such a breach will prevent the sort of deeply divisive activity that we have heard about from representatives of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council in oral evidence. It is obviously much better to prevent a breach of the ban in the first place than to wait for a divisive boycott or divestment policy to be put in place before taking action.

I reassure hon. Members that that does not mean that there will be active monitoring of public authorities. Potential breaches will be investigated as and when they are brought to the attention of enforcement authorities by third parties. When flagged to enforcement authorities, it is only where relevant to a potential breach of clause 1 or 4 that an information notice may be issued to require information from a relevant public body.

Finally, the enforcement regime does not provide unprecedented powers for enforcement authorities. It is based on existing regimes. The powers are based on those that the Office for Students already has for regulating universities, and the powers to enforce the ban for local government pension schemes are similar to those that the Pensions Regulator already has. I therefore ask that the amendments be withdrawn.

[Chris Stephens]

We wish to test the will of the Committee on the matter. I ask Members to support our amendments.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Chris Stephens]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

One definition of a human being is that they learn from their mistakes. To do so, they must review their actions against a set of criteria, often through an impact assessment, so as to identify any error, misjudgment or unintended consequence that they may have created. That sometimes leads to a revision or reversal of prior actions. I am sure that we all agree with that statement, given that we are all human beings, are we not? The principle applies to presumptions as well as actions. I am sure the Government hope this legislation will impact only on the countries and territories explicitly named in the Bill, but that may be presumptuous. New clause 1 provides a list of countries whose behaviour might change as a consequence of the Bill being enacted. It might change them for the better, but we ought to be aware that some will see it as a green light to expand their breaches of human rights, confident in the knowledge that the UK has turned a blind eye to their behaviour, all in the interest of expanding trade. We believe that the impact assessment and the timescales proposed are realistic and essential to the reputation of the UK. I ask the Committee to send a clear message to those countries by supporting the new clause.

[Felicity Buchan]

I urge hon. Members to reject the new clause. It would give the Secretary of State or Minister for the Cabinet Office a new duty to conduct an assessment, six months after passage of the Act, of its impact on the UK’s trade and diplomatic relations with the countries identified by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office as human rights priority countries.

The UK Government’s trade positions and diplomatic efforts will not be affected by the Bill. Its intent is to ensure that the UK speaks with one voice internationally; it is not to hamper diplomatic relations by publishing arbitrary impact assessments for the countries listed in the new clause. The Bill makes clear where the power to conduct foreign policy is, and allows other public bodies to focus on their core duties. It does not change any aspect of the UK’s foreign policy.

That is not to say that the Government will not carry out impact assessments on international matters when needed. Indeed, we are already committed to producing independently scrutinised impact assessments, such as those for new free trade agreements. Moreover, as with any Act that the House passes, once the Bill is an Act it can be subjected to post-legislative scrutiny by a parliamentary Select Committee to assess how it has worked in practice since coming into force. The additional impact assessment proposed by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West is unnecessary. For those reasons, I ask him to withdraw the new clause.

[Chris Stephens]

I have listened carefully to the Minister. If I understood her correctly, she said that the Bill does not change Foreign Office policy. Many Opposition Members believe that some provisions in the Bill actually do change Foreign Office policy, and we explored that in an earlier exchange. Many of us believe that we are using a domestic Bill to change Foreign Office policy, and if we are doing that, I insist that the Committee divide on the new clause.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member explain the basis on which he selected his large number of countries and excluded others?

[Chris Stephens]

As a member of this Committee, the hon. Gentleman could have tabled an amendment to the new clause or even his own amendment. Those countries were selected because of concerns with the human rights abuses that are taking place. Perhaps that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman enough for him to support the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

Similarly, I want to put on record our thanks to you, Dame Caroline, and Sir George, to the top-class Clerks for all their help, to the civil servants for their work and to my colleagues. I draw special attention to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who was shadow Secretary of State on Second Reading, for her efforts and support while we have been getting our work together, and to the Minister for her collegiate work, both inside and outside this room. I also thank her colleagues.

[Chris Stephens]

May I first thank you, Dame Caroline, and Sir George for chairing these sittings? I also commend all Members. There has been much debate around the Bill, and many of us have regarded it as essential that we debate it in a tone that is appropriate but also robust. I think we have done that in this Committee. I would like to thank all hon. Members for the tone they have adopted and also for their good humour. That has been essential for the Bill, which has been fairly controversial.

We will obviously reflect on the changes we want to see in the stages to come. I do think there is going to be a challenge on the Government’s side, because a number of their Members are very critical of the Bill. The fact that no amendments have been agreed will be a test for them. I again thank you, Dame Caroline, and Sir George, as well as the Clerks, for all the help we have had.

Lastly, it was unfortunate that there was no evidence from a Palestine support group in our evidence sessions. I do not believe there was a conspiracy on that. I think it was perhaps more cock-up than conspiracy, but I hope it is something we will all learn from. We should have all views heard, and we might all want to take that point away and reflect on it.

[Bob Blackman]

On that point, the Committee received correspondence today from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Conservative Members’ inboxes have certainly been filled with over 2,500 emails from people who are sending a template email that is factually inaccurate. It would be helpful to know from the Clerks or you, Dame Caroline, whether there will be a response to the correspondence we have had or whether we as individuals will have to respond and point out the facts. Personally, I have three or four emails from constituents, but the emails have come in from literally all over the country to everyone else. Frankly, it is a complete waste of their time and effort.

The point the Palestine Solidarity Campaign has made is reasonable given the information that has been supplied to it, but we need to correct the record on how the witnesses were chosen and on the offer that was made in terms of correspondence and evidence so that we could carefully consider all sides. As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West has referred to, we have to go through Report, Third Reading and the other place. It would be grossly unfair, given all the work the Committee has done, were it suggested that we were one-sided and did not hear the other side of the argument.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

The Committee did agree a resolution about who would come in to give evidence; that agreement was debatable and amendable. But the hon. Lady’s point is well made and is now on the record.

[Chris Stephens]

I would not usually try to intervene again, Dame Caroline, especially when I am trying to get to another debate, but I thank Government Members for raising this issue. I have had 2,700 emails, so I think that everyone on the Committee has got the emails. I suggest that this matter is raised through the usual channels. I think there was a cock-up rather than a conspiracy; the email address of one of the organisations was certainly on our suggested list. I think it would help all of us if there was a template response agreed via the usual channels. I put that forward as a suggestion to take to the usual channels to see whether we can come up with something that would be a template for us all.

[The Chair]

The Whips on both sides will have heard that, and I suggest they take it away and come up with a solution that is acceptable to everybody.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Economic impact assessment for Wales—

“Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Minister for the Cabinet Office must lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the Act on the economy in Wales.”

New clause 3—Assessment of the impact of the Act on the provision of food compliant with religious dietary beliefs and on the prevention of discrimination—

“Within six months of the passage of this Act, a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament a statement on their assessment of the impact of the Act on—

(a) the procurement of food meeting religious dietary beliefs, and

(b) the prevention of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief.”

Amendment 12, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, at end insert—

“(1A) But subsection (2) does not have effect in relation to a decision which falls within the competency of Senedd Cymru unless Senedd Cymru has passed a resolution granting its consent to the application of that subsection to such decisions.”

This amendment would require the consent of Senedd Cymru for the Bill to apply to decisions within the sphere of Welsh devolved legislative competence.

Amendment 26, page 1, line 5, leave out

“must not have regard to a territorial consideration”

and insert “must not act”.

This amendment, and Amendment 27, would remove the reference to a “territorial consideration” in the legislation.

Amendment 36, page 1, line 6, leave out from “would” to “was” in line 7, and insert “is”.

This amendment is to probe the use of a subjective, rather than an objective, test to establish whether a decision-maker has contravened clause 1.

Amendment 35, page 1, line 6, leave out from “that” to “influenced” in line 7 and insert “is”.

This amendment is to probe the use of a subjective, rather than an objective, test to establish whether a decision-maker has contravened clause 1.

Amendment 27, page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment, and Amendment 26, would remove the reference to a “territorial consideration” in the legislation.

Amendment 37, page 1, leave out lines 20 to 22.

This amendment is to probe the impact of the legislation on individuals, such as those working within public authorities.

Amendment 34, in clause 2, page 2, line 4, at end insert—

“(1A) But section 1 does not apply to decisions of Scottish Ministers.”

This amendment would remove decisions of Scottish Ministers from the scope of the Bill.

Amendment 14, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

This amendment would remove provisions allowing Ministers to amend the Schedule, via regulations, to add a description of decision or consideration, or amend or remove considerations added under previous regulations.

Amendment 18, page 2, line 28, leave out paragraph (b).

This amendment, and Amendments 19 and 20, seek to remove Scotland from the extent of this Bill.

Amendment 13, page 2, line 40, at end insert—

“(4A) Section 1 does not apply to a decision which has been made in accordance with a Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights.

(4B) A Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights—

(a) is a public authority’s policy criteria relating to disinvestment in cases concerning contravention of human rights; and

(b) must be applied consistently by the public authority to all foreign countries.

(4C) Within 60 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish, and lay before Parliament, guidance on the form, content and application of Statements for the purposes of this section

(4D) Public authorities must have regard to the guidance referenced in subsection (4C) when devising a Statement.”

This amendment would exempt public bodies from the prohibition in section 1, where the decision has been made in accordance with a Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights. A Statement may not single out individual nations, but would have to be applied consistently, and in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 7, page 3, line 7, leave out subsection (7).

This amendment would remove the prohibition on the Government specifying Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the Occupied Golan Heights as a country or territory to which the prohibition on boycotts does not apply, meaning they are treated just as all other countries and territories.

Amendment 21, page 3, line 11, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).

This amendment would remove the existing stipulation that the power to exempt a country or territory from section 1 may not be used in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the Occupied Golan Heights.

Amendment 2, page 3, line 13, leave out clause 4.

Amendment 3, in clause 4, page 3, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).

This amendment would remove the prohibition on a person publishing a statement indicating that they would have acted in a way prohibited by clause 1 if it were legal to do so.

Amendment 16, page 3, line 24, at end insert—

“(4) This section does not apply to—

(a) a local authority,

(b) an elected mayor of a local authority

(c) a mayor for the area of a combined authority,

(d) the Mayor of London,

(e) the London Assembly

(f) the Scottish Parliament, or

(g) Senedd Cymru.”

This amendment would exempt elected bodies from the prohibition on making public statements indicating that they intend to, or would intend to if it were lawful, act in a way that would contravene section 1.

Amendment 28, page 3, line 24, at end insert—

“(4) Nothing in this section requires any act or omission that conflicts with the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Human Rights Act 1998.”

This amendment would ensure that any act or omission under the “gagging clause” in clause 4 would not conflict with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), in particular, Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) and Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the ECHR as incorporated by the HRA.

Amendment 29, in clause 7, page 5, line 8, leave out “, or is about to make”.

This amendment, together with Amendments 30 to 33, would remove the ability of information notices and compliance notices to be given to public bodies prior to an actual contravention of the ban.

Amendment 30, page 5, line 12, leave out “, or is likely to contravene”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 29.

Amendment 31, page 5, line 15, leave out “, or is about to publish,”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 29.

Amendment 32, page 5, line 18, leave out “, or is likely to contravene,”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 29.

Amendment 38, page 5, line 39, leave out from “legislation” to the end of line 41.

This amendment is to probe the way the legislation appears to “qualify” the data protection legislation.

Amendment 33, in clause 8, page 6, line 6, leave out “, or is likely to contravene”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 29.

Amendment 4, in clause 12, page 8, line 4, at end insert—

“(1A) But section 1 does not apply in relation to a fund investment decision made by such a manager if the decision has been approved by a majority of those voting in a ballot of the members of the fund; and section 4 does not apply to any statement—

(a) made for the purpose of preparing for or explaining the purpose of such a ballot;

(b) concerning a decision which has been approved by such a ballot.”

This amendment would allow a local government pension fund to act in a way prohibited by clause 1 if the decision to do so is approved by a majority of scheme members, and would prevent statements about or following such a ballot being prohibited by clause 4.

Amendment 19, in clause 17, page 10, line 38, leave out “Scotland”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 18.

Amendment 20, page 11, line 19, leave out “Scotland”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 18.

Amendment 5, in the schedule, page 12, line 21, at end insert—

“3A Section 1 does not apply to—

(a) a registered higher education provider in England, as defined by section 3(10) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017;

(b) an institution within the higher education sector in Wales, as defined by section 91 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;

(c) an institution within the higher education sector in Scotland, as defined by section 56 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992;

(d) a higher education institution in Northern Ireland, as defined by article 30 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1993.”

This amendment would remove universities and other higher education providers from the requirement to act in accordance with clause 1.

Amendment 6, page 13, line 5, at end insert—

“6A Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as it relates to conduct which it is the position of His Majesty’s Government represents a breach of international law.”

This amendment would permit decisions which would otherwise be in breach of clause 1 if they are taken in response to conduct which the Government considers to be a breach of international law.

Amendment 17, page 13, line 5, at end insert—

“6A Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the purpose of the decision is to prevent violations of international law including the deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, the imposition of collective punishment on civilian populations, forced transfer of civilians, and other acts which may constitute war crimes.”

Amendment 22, page 13, line 5, at end insert—

“(2) Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in breaching international law, where that breach of international law is directly related to the decision.”

Amendment 8, page 15, line 22, at end insert “, environmental protection, environmental targets, environmental treaties or environmental law (as defined by the Environment Act 2021).”

This amendment would expand the environmental grounds on which a public body is allowed to make certain economic decisions.

Amendment 9, page 15, line 26, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

“(a) reduces the level of environmental protection, including in a country or territory other than the United Kingdom, or

(b) caused, or had the potential to cause, harm to the natural environment, including the life and health of—

(i) plants, wild animals and other living organisms,

(ii) their habitats, or

(iii) land (except buildings or other structures), air and water,

and the natural systems, cycles and processes through which they interact.”

This amendment extends the definition of environment misconduct to include damage regardless of whether it is legal or illegal, and to include species, habitats and the natural world.

Amendment 10, page 15, line 29, at end insert “and the welfare of animals”

This amendment would add conduct causing, or having the potential to cause, significant harm to the welfare of animals to the types of conduct which constitute environmental misconduct and to which regard may therefore be had without contravening section 1.

Amendment 11, page 15, line 29, at end insert—

“(4) The conduct referenced in sub-paragraph (3) includes conduct which amounts to—

(a) an offence under section 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 or 13 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and

(b) an infringement or contravention of any of the requirements or prohibitions in Schedule 1 of the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015.”

This amendment would clarify the meaning of “welfare of animals” for the purpose of Amendment 10.

Amendment 15, page 15, line 29, at end insert—

“11 Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as it relates to the use of fossil fuels.”

This amendment would allow for a public body to consider the use of fossil fuels when taking certain economic decisions.

Amendment 23, page 15, line 29, at end insert—

“11 Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in the crime of genocide as determined under international law, where that crime of genocide is directly related to the decision.”

Amendment 24, page 15, line 29, at end insert—

“11 Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in the crime of ethnic cleansing as determined under international law, where that ethnic cleansing is directly related to the decision.”

Amendment 25, page 15, line 29, at end insert—

“11 Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in the crime of apartheid as determined under international law, where that crime of apartheid is directly related to the decision.”

I call Anum Qaisar.

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I beg the hon. Member’s pardon—Chris Stephens.

[Chris Stephens]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I forgive you for that after your excellent address to the all-party parliamentary group on Cyprus last night; it was an excellent event.

I rise to speak to the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar). I indicate now that I will be looking to divide the House on amendment 28, to which I will confine most of my remarks. However, many in this House are deeply disappointed at what the Government are doing in proceeding with this Bill. As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) said on Monday,

“now is not the time.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 611.]

Let me say at the outset that we all condemn the killing of innocent civilians. We do condemn Hamas and their acts of terror on 7 October, and Hamas must release all hostages. We must equally recognise that there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and it is legitimate to question the actions of the Israeli Government. It is perfectly legitimate to call for a ceasefire to address that crisis and let humanitarian aid flow in to save the lives of innocent Palestinian people.

There are vastly more people around these islands who are perplexed by the Government’s playing party political games when the middle east is in crisis and the rest of the world fears the start of an even broader conflict. This is not the time to seek electoral advantage through tripping up political opponents during semantic exchanges, exploiting small differences in language to pretend there is a vast gulf between positions, or selling that to the electorate as “one party good, all other parties bad.”

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on the way he is making his comments. Does he agree that it is positively dangerous to do what this Government are doing when we see the huge rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia? Just now, our communities need us in Parliament to be showing a lead and to be united on this, and not to do something that is so divisive and so deliberately provocative and deeply damaging to the unity of our communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I hope that those on the Government Benches listened to her. Many of us have that real fear. This is not the occasion to push forward this legislation. Polarisation is a game that has long been played by the Government, but this is not a game; this is real life, or the loss of it, and such cynicism has no place here. In Israel and Palestine, we have two peoples who feel that they are under existential threat from the other. Almost everyone understands that, and we have all been trying to find solutions that will bring peace to that region. Ringfencing the interests of one group by diminishing the rights of the other can never yield a long-term solution to the entrenched problems in the middle east; it simply exacerbates the tension between the two. The very real fear, which the hon. Member has just expressed, is that it forces people into one camp or the other, it feeds hatred and it fuels the evil that is antisemitism.

It is not too late to withdraw the Bill. If the Government are determined to proceed with it, I hope they listen to the advice from both sides of the House, in particular from Government Back Benchers, and amend the clauses that will otherwise further inflame the divisions that the Government claim they are trying to heal. As with most conflicts, verbal and military, there tends to be collateral damage that has either not been fully anticipated or where the perpetrator simply does not care about the consequences. In their assumed aim of defending the rights of Israel, the Government are attacking the rights of many sectors of our own society, ranging from the legislative and judicial rights of the devolved Parliaments to the democratic rights of elected local authorities, and cutting a swathe through the individual human rights of all people across these islands.

In its long title, the Bill is described as:

“A Bill to make provision to prevent public bodies from being influenced by political or moral disapproval of foreign states when taking certain economic decisions”.

It would appear that public bodies are not fit to make political or moral judgments and, as we will see later, individuals are not fit to make such judgments either. As I said in an earlier debate, the electorate will not miss the irony of a Tory Government presenting themselves as the sole moral arbiter for the whole of these islands.

The pretext for introducing this legislation was an assumed need to respond robustly to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement—or BDS—which advocates a complete boycott of Israel and Israeli people and which suggests that the state of Israel does not even have the right to exist. The Government ignore the fact that, in line with other Governments in Europe and the EU itself, the Scottish Government and the SNP unequivocally condemn and distance themselves from members or affiliates within the BDS movement. Rather than wish the state of Israel to cease to exist, most democratic countries are strong supporters of a two-state solution, with the Government reasserting that position to the House earlier this year, and President Biden reaffirming support only last week. We as a House are generally united in supporting a two-state solution, and to imply otherwise is a red herring and a dangerous distraction to mature debate.

More than 40 Israeli non-governmental organisations have called for this Bill to be rejected, as has the Union of Jewish Students and Yachad, with the latter saying that

“we are unequivocal about the need to protect the right to express differences of opinions, even if they are opinions that we fiercely disagree with”.

Let us listen to them. On the broader issue of human rights at home, let us listen to some other organisations. Amnesty International asserts that the Bill

“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.”

But we knew that already. Amnesty goes on to say:

“Companies depending on public contracts will feel more confident that their global impacts on human rights and the environment will be irrelevant to their success in tendering processes.”

I see this Bill as a clear incitement to such companies to lessen their commitments to human rights and the environment, as they will no longer need them to gain public contracts. Companies that respect human rights face being undercut by those that knowingly breach international standards with little fear of consequences. What a horrible race to the bottom.

There is a niggling problem here for the Government regarding human rights. There is a global consensus on the human rights standards applicable to companies. The United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights were unanimously endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council, the European Union, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Standards Organisation. The UK was the first country to develop a national action plan to implement those guiding principles, and now we appear to be the first country to renege on those commitments.

The UK is in danger of being a rogue state in this field, going against the tide of international opinion, which considers that public bodies should use procurement and investment policies to incentivise business to be ethical and human rights compliant. I would argue that is in the public interest. Let us consider an example from Amnesty, whereby an NHS body might choose to avoid sourcing medical equipment from certain suppliers, such as Malaysia, Thailand, Pakistan or Mexico, saying that they had been implicated in modern slavery. Those overseas supply companies could take legal action under this legislation on the grounds that the decision makers were influenced by

“political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct”,

and the courts would then have to determine whether the exemption in the Bill for labour-related misconduct applied in that particular case.

Let us imagine that a public body in Scotland decided to stop sourcing beef from a Brazilian meat distribution company whose products had been linked to deforestation of the Amazon. If the proposed law had been in place during the previous Brazil presidency, when exploitation of the Amazon was being actively encouraged, the Brazilian Government or the company whose products were being excluded could have challenged the decision in the High Court on the grounds that it was influenced by

“political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct”.

Since it is unclear whether the environmental misconduct exemption referred to in part 2 of the schedule to the Bill would prevail, the risk attached would have been likely to deter any public body from taking such a decision on environmental grounds. They would have been compelled to be complicit in deforestation.

Liberty and other groups have pointed out that the Bill gives the enforcement authority the power to issue a notice to a public authority requesting an assessment of whether there has, or may be, a breach of the ban or the prohibition on making statements. The Bill gives the enforcement authority the power to impose a compliance notice where they consider a person is likely to contravene the ban—not “has contravened”, but “is likely to contravene”. We are in the realms of Orwell’s thought police or Philip K. Dick’s “The Minority Report”, with precogs catching criminals before they have even committed the crime. The normal police come for someone if they commit a criminal act, but the thought police are different; they act if someone intends to act in some particular way.

Under the Bill, the authorities do not need to demonstrate any proof of intent to publish a particular kind of statement. That is impossible to do in the normal world, so let us just rely on telepathy for finding out someone’s intent. Clause 4 of the Bill would prohibit public bodies and their leaders—such as university vice-chancellors, local council leaders, or even the chief executive of a private company delivering public services—from publishing public statements indicating that they intend to act in a way that would contravene the ban, or that they would, in theory, intend to act that way if not for the ban. A local council could no longer publish statements such as, “Our local council would have boycotted these goods from this state-owned enterprise due to the state’s conduct in relation to this territory, but the law does not permit this, and we intend to comply with the law.” I never expected to say these words, as someone who subscribes to socialist theory, but: we must remove clause 4. I say that just on this occasion. I notice that an amendment to that effect has been tabled.

Liberty has also pointed out that in other jurisdictions, anti-boycott laws have had a severe impact on freedom of expression. In one case in the US, a speech pathologist in Texas lost her school contract because she declined to sign an agreement promising not to boycott Israel on the basis of a similar anti-boycott law. In another, a dermatologist was withheld payment for a lecture for failing to agree not to boycott Israel. US campaigners have further warned that anti-boycott legislation, once enacted, is liable to be extended to a plethora of issues—from fossil fuels to gun control. I fear we are looking at another damaging cultural import from the United States of America.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I have heard the Secretary of State say several times that the Conservatives are in favour of devolution, so should they not be required to seek consent from the Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland before they proceed?

[Chris Stephens]

My hon. Friend is correct that they should. I suspect they will not receive it from either the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Senedd, for many reasons. As he says, there is clearly an impact on devolution.

Devolution was approved overwhelmingly by the people of Scotland, and any erosion of it is strongly opposed by most, but not all, parties in that Parliament. I will let Members guess which party is least protective of Scotland’s interests. Scotland’s current legislative powers are guarded jealously, and there is strong demand for many—possibly all—reserved powers to be transferred to Scottish control. That is not surprising.

I and others will continue to explore the Bill’s deficiencies again today, pointing out its many contradictions.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his excellent speech. He has given very good democratic, social and moral reasons for why the Bill is in deep defect. Does he not think a better process would be for the Secretary of State now to withdraw the Bill altogether?

[Chris Stephens]

That would be very helpful indeed. The right hon. Gentleman is right. Those of us who have tabled amendments are trying to clean up a dog’s breakfast, which is very difficult. We are all trying to make the Bill a little better but, as my good friend says, the ultimate solution would be to withdraw it entirely.

I have highlighted the Bill’s contradictions, counter-productiveness and profound consequences, and I will be seeking to divide the House on amendment 28. I look forward to hearing other Members pursue their amendments.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I would like to speak against all the amendments and new clauses before us today and in support of the Bill as currently drafted.

We need this Bill. I thank the Government for including it in the Conservative manifesto and taking it forward, and I urge the whole House to back the Bill and reject the amendments. This, of all times, is a time to stand with the Jewish community, following the worst attack on Jewish people since the holocaust.

BDS has been identified in a succession of studies as driving a rise in antisemitism. By singling out the world’s only Jewish state for criticism, above and beyond that directed at any other country in similar circumstances, I believe BDS campaigns fall within the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. The French supreme court has ruled that BDS is discriminatory, and the German Parliament views the movement as antisemitic.

Since the shocking Hamas terror attacks, we have witnessed deeply disturbing scenes on our TV screens and in our streets. These include sickening so-called celebrations of the horrific murders in southern Israel, and the anti-Jewish racism and hatred visible at successive protests on the streets of our capital city. At a time like this, when Jewish people are in fear for their friends and relatives in Israel, it is appalling to compound their anxiety and distress with hate-filled banners and chants at such protests. I find it deeply depressing that “Jihad! Jihad!” has been shouted with impunity on the streets of our city, and that ISIS flags have been on blatant display.

The dramatic rise in antisemitic incidents is wholly unacceptable, and it shows us that we need campaigns to bring communities together, not drive them apart. There can be no doubt that BDS is absolutely focused on division, not unity. The BDS movement deplores co-existence and peacebuilding initiatives. For example, it has condemned co-operation between Israeli and Palestinian universities. The movement’s founder, Omar Barghouti, has repeatedly expressed his opposition to Israel’s right to exist.

As we go into the voting Lobbies this evening, we are in a situation where the question to be asked of all of us is: “Which side are you on?”. I make it clear that I strongly support the right of Israel to defend its land and its citizens from terrorist attack.

Of course, we all worry about the plight of innocent Gazans put in harm’s way by Hamas, who brutalise them and deliberately use them as human shields. Of course, we need to get supplies to civilians, so long as there is confidence that they cannot be diverted or misused by terrorists. We must always remember that it is Hamas who have endangered the people of Gaza. Hamas are the people who have caused the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

I am in no doubt that the Israeli Defence Forces are making, and will continue to make, the greatest efforts possible to prevent civilian loss of life. Israel is one of the most democratic countries in the world, and it respects the rule of law. I am certain that its democratic and legal institutions will hold its armed forces rigorously to account. Those on the Labour Benches who line up to casually, and wrongly, accuse Israel of war crimes should check their facts, not rush to judgment.

We need our local authorities to concentrate on delivering services, not on conducting their own trade and foreign policy. We need campaigns that promote peaceful progress towards a two-state solution, not bitterness and exclusion. We need to take all possible action against the antisemitism that we have seen increase so shockingly in recent days. We need this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate for the thought and care that they have given to the legislation before us. I appreciate that we are debating these measures at a sensitive time and that, across the House, people will place different emphases on aspects of the legislation and the broader issues with which it deals.

Let me be clear: I have respect for everyone who has spoken and the arguments that they have made. Where there is disagreement, it is in the context of everyone in this House being united in their horror of terrorism, their desire for peace and their belief in a two-state solution.

We are seeking in the Bill to give effect to a manifesto commitment, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) has just pointed out. The Bill was introduced earlier this year. Indeed, it completed its Committee stage under the careful and thoughtful stewardship of the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), with contributions from all sides of merit, thought and care.

Of course, those debates took place before the horrific events of 7 October, to which so many colleagues in this debate have referred. It is important to remember—I do not think that anyone in the House can forget—that on 7 October we saw the largest loss of Jewish life since the holocaust. That atrocity was perpetrated by terrorists from Hamas whose aim is very clear and very simple: the elimination of the Jewish state, the elimination of Jewish lives. Whatever the background beliefs or origin of those Jewish lives, they were to be exterminated.

More than 200 hostages are still being held by Hamas in Gaza. Across the House, we grieve for them and their families. I thank in particular the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), with whom I have been in touch, who have been working very hard to ensure that their constituents are released and brought home. I also thank the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), who joined me and many Members from all parties at a vigil in Trafalgar Square on Sunday to call for the return of those hostages.

We also sympathise across the House with the innocent people of Gaza, and with all those Palestinian people who have suffered. We recognise that many of the innocent people in Gaza are hostages too. They are hostages of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the other terrorist organisations that operate within that territory. It is vital at all times that we draw a distinction between those who suffer in Gaza and those who are perpetrating suffering in the name of terrorism.

I am very conscious that we are debating these issues against that backdrop, but it is important that we look at the principles behind the Bill. I also thank our friend, the ambassador of the state of Israel, who is here in the Gallery to listen to our considerations. She and other ambassadors have been working with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to ensure that every hostage is released back to their Jewish home with their family.

It is important to recognise what the Bill does not do. A number of legitimate concerns were expressed that actually do not reflect what is in the Bill and what the Bill is intended to achieve. The Bill does not prevent any individual from articulating their support for the BDS campaign, or indeed any particular policy that the BDS campaign puts forward. It simply prevents public bodies and public money being used to advance that case. Any of us as individuals has a total right to freedom of speech. However offensive or difficult some of the words that some utter might be, free speech is not affected by the Bill.

The Bill also does not prevent human rights considerations from being taken into account by local authorities. The Bill makes it clear that legitimate human rights considerations, provided that they are non-country-specific, should be taken into account. I note the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) about animal welfare. If specific human rights considerations need to be added to the Bill, we will consider that in the Lords. I also note the comments made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). We want to ensure that there is a robust way of ensuring that local authorities can uphold human rights on a non-country-specific basis.

I noted some of the concerns expressed about the impact on the local government pension scheme. Let me stress again that there is no damage to the fiduciary duty that trustees of the scheme will have to uphold in ensuring that they secure the best value on their investments for their members. What the Bill does do is deal with the broad principle that foreign policy should be reserved to this House. It is important to stress that when other public bodies take a stand on foreign policy, they risk vitiating the power of both the Government and the House to achieve goals for the benefit of the United Kingdom and risk creating specific community tensions.

Talking of specific community tensions takes us, of course, to the specific menace that is the BDS movement. It is of course possible for local government to consider adopting boycotts in a variety of ways, but the truth is that if we look at local government and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) pointed out, at the devolved Administrations, the only country that has been singled out so far for boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns has been Israel. Let us not hide from that fact.

The reason for that is that the BDS campaign is in itself antisemitic. It is not exercising disapproval of some particular foreign policy or domestic policy decision of the state of Israel; it is saying that Israel should not exist. It is instructive, though not easy, to look at the communications that the BDS movement has issued on social media since 7 October—not one word of sympathy for the Israeli people in their suffering. Indeed, what it has said on social media, when talking of those deaths, is that “their blood”—the blood of the Jewish people; the Israeli people killed—

“is on the hands of the Israeli government.”

The BDS campaign has said that the “root cause” of this violence—the deaths on 7 October—

“must be acknowledged…Israel as the occupier.”

The BDS movement has cited a variety of politicians as what they call “partners in genocide”: Rishi Sunak, Joe Biden, Olaf Scholz and Ursula von der Leyen. Of course, the BDS campaign also continues to repeat the lie—the blood libel—that it was the Israeli Defence Forces who were responsible for the tragic loss of life at the Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza. That is what we are dealing with, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for making clear the horror that he and so many of us hold for the BDS movement.

There is an argument that perhaps this Bill is divisive and it is not wanted, particularly by many voices in the Jewish community. There are some voices in the Jewish community who have concerns, and we have listened to them, but the representative bodies that speak for Britain’s Jewish community are united in supporting this Bill. They include the Board of Deputies, which contains representatives of every Jewish constituency, Jewish organisation and every Jewish community, be it secular or religious, and the Jewish Leadership Council, which contains representatives of every political and faith tradition within the Jewish community. We have heard reference made to the increase we have seen—it is horrific to think about it—in antisemitic incidents in recent weeks. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) made reference to the Community Security Trust. I have been in contact with it this afternoon and it sent me this message:

“BDS has a chilling impact on Jews, a modern reminder of anti-Jewish boycotts. It also serves to legitimise the shunning of Jews from ‘decent’ society. And having been shunned…that’s a half way house to all manner of more abusive and physical outcomes.”

So we respect the diversity of voices, but when we have such unity from those who speak for the Jewish community—indeed, the Jewish communities—of the UK, when they are so clear that this legislation is in the interests of community cohesion, fighting antisemitism and making the UK a safe house for everyone, we should treat their words with respect.

The point has been made that the specific mention in the Bill of Israel could perhaps, in some cases, engender a greater degree of polarisation and antisemitism. I know that the people who make that argument make it sincerely, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) pointed out, sometimes we just have to stand up for what is right. If there are people who are provoked as a result of that, it is regrettable but we should not shy away from telling the truth. We should not shy away from saying that what has been going on with Gaza’s genocidal campaign against the Jewish people is something that we as a country need to stand against. When the BDS campaign has in its leadership the leaders of Hamas, we need to be clear about this evil and this menace. That is not just my argument; it is also the argument of the Jewish community organisations that I cited earlier, including the Jewish Leadership Council. In its submission to the Committee considering this Bill, it said:

“The inclusion of clause 3(7) recognises this unique nature of the BDS campaign against Israel”.

It stated its belief that if that provision were excised, as one amendment seeks to achieve,

“the very purpose of the bill would be undermined. Such a change would…convert a bill aiming to prevent anti-Israel BDS campaigns from abusing our public bodies into a tool to facilitate it.”

It is debatable, of course, whether this is the right way forward—the Jewish Leadership Council is very clear that it is—but I simply ask: after everything we have seen in the past three weeks, if this House were now to remove a specific protection for the state of Israel at this time, what message would it send? I submit to every Member of this House that we should listen to the Jewish community and the clarity with which they speak.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tone he has adopted so far, as it is important that we adopt the correct tone in this debate. Does he recognise the concerns that not just Israel is mentioned in the clause? This is also about why the Government have included the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights. That has also aroused some comment, debate and criticism.

[Michael Gove]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point and appreciate the concerns that he articulates, which are shared by a number of people, but the way in which the Bill is designed makes it clear that there is a separation between Israel, the OPTs and the Golan Heights. As the Jewish Leadership Council pointed out in its evidence to the Committee on which the hon. Gentleman served with distinction:

“This clause recognises this distinction”—

it absolutely does—

“and closes a loophole to ensure public bodies cannot remain tools of the BDS movement against Israel.”

It is also the case that, by making that distinction, the clause—and the Bill overall—reserves to the UK Government the role of maintaining, as we do, our absolute commitment to a two-state solution. As framed, then, the Bill is absolutely not in breach of international law. It enables the UK Government to speak with one voice on behalf of the entire United Kingdom in our determination to secure a two-state solution, however distant that prospect may be at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Does Chris Stephens wish to press new clause 1 to a Division?

[Chris Stephens]

No, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

Exceptions

Amendment proposed: 14, page 2, line 17, leave out subsections (2) and (3).—(Angela Rayner.)

This amendment would remove provisions allowing Ministers to amend the Schedule, via regulations, to add a description of decision or consideration, or amend or remove considerations added under previous regulations.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Chris Stephens Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). I hope that other Members listened to his contribution and what he had to say, because I share his concerns about using domestic legislation in this Bill to deviate from Foreign Office policy. That is the clear concern that many of us have.

In an exchange with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) when we explored this matter in Committee, we talked about what the actual foreign policy is. The Bill, as it is currently constructed, clearly conflates Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights, yet the UK Government’s guidance on overseas business risk states:

“The UK has a clear position on Israeli settlements: The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights have been occupied by Israel since 1967. Settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

The concern we have is that the Bill is less than subtle as a change, if not to direct policy then certainly in emphasis. Equating Israel and the occupied territories is unique in any legislation, let alone in a statement, and it questions the UK’s long-established, cross-party support for a two-state solution based on 1967 borders.

As a party, we believe that the Bill is also an assault on Westminster’s devolution settlements, not just for the Scottish Parliament but for the Welsh Senedd. The legislation undermines devolution and restricts the ability of public bodies to make their own moral judgment on matters of human rights and climate consciousness.

I heard the Secretary of State argue that public bodies should not deviate from foreign policy. As we have discovered in this debate and in all the debates we have had, in 1981, City of Glasgow District Council—a Labour-led local authority—gave Nelson Mandela the freedom of the city of Glasgow. It also encouraged the boycotting of South African goods and services, but Foreign Office policy at the time was not to support sanctions on the apartheid South African regime, so the question again is: could Glasgow District Council in 1981 have awarded Nelson Mandela the freedom of the city of Glasgow, and would it have been allowed to encourage the boycott of South African goods and services, under this Bill? If the Bill had been in place then, the answer to that question would be no.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is doing a great job of putting on record the SNP’s opposition to this foul piece of legislation. Does he think it is particularly distasteful and grotesque that the Bill is coming at this time and that the UK Government’s only legislative response to what is happening in the middle east is to try to bring forward proposals to stifle criticism of Israel, when it is clear and there is so much evidence that Israel stands facing charges of breaching international law and breaching the Geneva convention? Surely most right-minded people in this country who believe in decency and fairness will think that this is the wrong thing at the wrong time.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I think many Members have a concern about whether it is appropriate to proceed with the Bill at this moment in time. Other Members may wish to state that when they get the opportunity to speak.

The Bill extends to devolved Governments and local authorities in the devolved nations; because procurement and investment by public bodies are not reserved matters, it would appear to breach the Sewel convention if the devolved legislatures do not agree. I note that the Scottish Parliament has not provided legislative consent to the Bill.

We are also concerned that public bodies will not be able to make decisions about environmental protections. For example, Friends of the Earth has said that the Bill will

“prevent public bodies from divesting from fossil fuel, as well as diverting their money away from inadvertently funding human rights abuses abroad, such as modern slavery in corporate supply chains.”

Labour rights would also not be allowed to be considered. Poor workers’ rights are not restricted to any one region of the world—we see them from China to Colombia, from Bangladesh to Angola, from Cambodia to Qatar and from Mexico to Romania—and, according to the World Economic Forum, the abuse of workers’ rights around the world reached a record high in 2022. I believe that when public bodies make funding arrangements for procurement or anything else, they should be allowed to consider labour rights. Our concern is that the Bill does not allow that to happen.

I want to make it clear—as I have at every stage of the Bill—that the Scottish National party is concerned that antisemitism is on the rise around the world. We must not look away, and we must call it out whenever we see it. Antisemitism is a truly global and iniquitous poison. The Bill does not address the very epidemic of rising antisemitism that the Government claim they want to tackle. We are also concerned that the Government have ignored the evidence and concerns that many organisations have put forward about the Bill. The Balfour Project, the trade union Unison—of which I am proud to be a member—the Union of Jewish Students and Jews for Justice for Palestinians have all provided good evidence on their concerns about the Bill, but I am afraid they have not been taken on board by the Government when we have considered these matters.

The Government have rejected sensible amendments. Some of us have real concerns about clause 3 and very real concerns about clause 4. I never thought I would ever say it, and I am having to say again that I seek the removal of clause 4. The Government rejected amendments to protect devolution and other public bodies, and amendments to ensure compatibility with human rights. The changing of foreign policy, the impinging on the rights of devolved institutions and other public bodies, the ignoring of the evidence and the rejecting of sensible amendments are the key reasons why the Bill does not deserve a Third Reading.

[Several hon. Members rose—]