Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

That is absolutely right. In fact, the Union of Jewish Students, which has expressed real concerns about the Bill—the very students who have often been the targets of the appalling abuse and attacks that the hon. Gentleman has outlined—is clear that it wants to see this problem tackled. I hope that is a basis on which we can proceed across the House in a debate that, as I have said, needs far more light and far less heat. I remain confident that, with good faith and good will on everyone’s part, we can find a way to tackle what is a very real problem for the Jewish community in this country.

I will take a moment to explain why the Bill does not do what the Government intend it to do. Clause 1 attempts to ban public bodies from taking decisions influenced by

“political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct.”

We have commissioned legal advice that suggests there are two readings of the clause. I would just say to some Conservative Members that a King’s counsel—a distinguished King’s counsel who happens to disagree about the legal impact of this legislation—deserves a hearing and deserves respect. If in a democracy those who disagree with us are accused of acting dishonestly or in bad faith, we are in a very dark place indeed. That legal advice suggests that on first reading the clause applies only when it relates to specific territories. That would create the absurd situation where public bodies could refuse goods from China because of general disregard for human rights, but could not refuse cotton goods from Xinjiang because of concerns about genocide against the Uyghur population.

The second reading of the clause, which I imagine is what the Government intend, is that public bodies are banned from having any regard at all to human rights violations of foreign Governments unless they are expressly permitted by this Government. There are a few exceptions in the schedule referred to in clause 3—labour rights, bribery and the environment—but not genocide, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has said, or systematic torture or grave breaches of the Geneva convention. After the horrors of the second world war, it was British diplomats who held the pen, crafting the international legal system that recognised that some crimes are so grave that they should never be acceptable. What has changed that gives the Government grounds to create two tiers through this Bill—to deem slavery unacceptable, but remain silent on the issue of genocide? Have we given up believing that these things matter?

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she share my concerns that the Bill will weaken our voice on the international stage in tackling human rights abuses? It will enable many regimes with appalling human rights records, or companies that have track records of labour law violations or environmental recklessness, to continue without consequence, including where those abuses are incompatible with international law.

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that concern, which has also been raised with me. I defer to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who I know will make a contribution in due course.

What is not clear to me and other Labour Members is why the Government have sought to draw this Bill’s powers so broadly. It is not just breathtaking in its reach; it is deeply contradictory, because the Bill itself accepts that there will be times when public bodies will take a view about the conduct of foreign Governments on specific grounds, such as modern slavery. In fact, the Secretary of State wrote to councils last year urging them to do so in the case of Russia, and has since signalled his intent to add Russia and Belarus to the list of exceptions allowed by clause 3. Only two years ago in this House, I sat on these Benches as we proudly and rightly passed the Magnitsky regulations, which recognised the power of economic sanctions to direct state conduct and raise global standards. However, the Secretary of State is now proposing a Bill that will prevent—for example—the Department for Business and Trade from taking human rights violations into account when deciding whether to grant export credit guarantees. Surely he can see the problem. The Cameron Government became a signatory to the UN guiding principles on business and human rights a decade ago. The Government’s own action plan makes it clear that businesses have a corporate responsibility to uphold human rights and to monitor those they deal with commercially. After years of promising to hand over powers and spending decisions to Mayors, combined authorities and councils, is the Secretary of State seriously saying that they are not capable of exercising the same duty?

There are other areas of deep confusion in this Bill that we believe will open up the prospect of ongoing legal challenge, and I know that has been raised by Conservative Members. Clause 1 bans action that a reasonable observer would conclude is motivated by moral or political disapproval of a foreign Government, but on these deeply contested notions what constitutes a “reasonable observer”?

Clause 4 is even more problematic. It prohibits public bodies from expressing a view not just about how they intend to act, but how they would have done so had the law not been in force. It is difficult to know how public bodies, particularly those that are elected, should respond to this. In recent years, many councils have, for example, been asked by their own residents not to use Chinese companies with links to Xinjiang. My own council is one of them. Under this Bill, faced with thousands of people signing a public petition, a council would not even be able to give any indication of whether or not it agreed with its own residents. Our legal advice suggests that this extraordinary situation is likely to be incompatible with article 10 of the European convention on human rights.

Clause 3(7) creates even more confusion. It singles out Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan heights as places for which no exemption can ever be made. The long-standing position of the UK Government is to support a two-state solution along pre-1967 lines that protects and respects the security and right to self-determination of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. This clause drives a coach and horses through that, according the occupied territories the same protected status as Israel and in effect conflating the two. It contradicts established Government policy, and I find it hard to believe that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has agreed to this. I note the questions from two Conservative Members, and I am deeply concerned that it appears that the Government and the Secretary of State have not even asked that question. It appears that Conservative Members have seen a circular from Foreign Office officials raising objections to this Bill, yet the Secretary of State has not. I urge him to look closely at that matter before the Bill proceeds.