Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, explained her Amendment 27 with great clarity, but I am afraid that I do not agree with her analysis of the problem, nor do I agree with the analysis of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for reasons which I will now explain.

Financial matters have been my stock in trade for well over half a century, since I left university. I have been trying to work out what these additional words, “risk” and “impact”, would add to the concept of financial value. The term financial value is not a term of art in my world, the accountancy world, but I think that it means something along the lines of the worth of something expressed in money terms. What something is worth can mean what it is realised for in a market transaction, or what it is worth in terms of the financial benefits it is evaluated to or expected to bring. I believe that neither “risk” nor “impact” add anything to the meaning of financial value.

I start with risk. Risk will affect value, so any determination of what something would fetch in a market or what benefits it would bring would of course take account of the risks when doing the calculations of financial value. This is just 101 of calculating things in financial terms. That is effectively why the DWP documents refer to risk. They do not refer to documents about risk as an adjunct to financial value; they are just encouraging the identification of risks, because that is a normal part of a balanced evaluation. While I do not think that the word risk does any particular harm to the concept of financial value, I do not think that the word is necessary.

I have struggled a bit more with working out what financial impact means. The only thing I could come up with was something like the evaluation of the net costs or benefits to be obtained from what is being acquired, but I cannot see what financial impact adds to the meaning of financial value. In this case, it would be positively confusing to add financial impact alongside financial value, because it might encourage somebody to litigate on the basis that there was a difference between financial value and impact, as Parliament clearly meant something other than financial value by the concept of financial impact. That would be a failure on our part to create certainty in our legislation.

I would also like to comment on Amendment 46A, from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, which is in this group. I expect he will be speaking to it a little later. I could not understand why the noble Lord has chosen UN-related documents to refer to when trying to put what he calls “established investment principles” into the Bill. The UK Government have already announced a series of actions that they have implemented in relation to the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, much of it already in legislation and unaffected by the Bill. In response to those principles, the relevant parts of our legal system are already in place, and we do not need to refer to a UN document to get any further on investment principles; they have already been interpreted by the UK Government.

Furthermore, we already have a perfectly good Stewardship Code in the UK, issued by the Financial Reporting Council, which deals with ESG matters. I do not believe the Bill alters that at all, so long as ESG principles do not acquire a territorial dimension.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

There was a little throwaway remark there: that ESG principles will not involve territorial matters. There are many examples where it could be quite a big influence.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

The noble Lord picks me up when I used a bit of shorthand. I really mean the contents of Clause 1 and the moral disapproval in relation to territorial consideration. I was just trying to say that ESG principles are unaffected; they are in the UK system of corporate governance and stewardship, and they are unchanged by this Bill, except where those principles are used in the way described in Clause 1.

The UN principles of responsible investment are not even issued by a UN body: it is a private body that issues them. Those principles have no standing whatever in the UK, except to the extent that UK-based signatories sign up to them. In my view, it is a rather odd thing to be putting into the Bill to define investment principles.

The UN Human Rights Council, which owns this territory, is, like most of the UN, including the General Assembly, pretty anti-Israel. I have an underlying concern that using these UN-affiliated principles—to use a shorthand—is just another way of allowing divestment decisions in relation to Israel by the back door. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, does not intend for that to be the effect of his amendment, but I have a fear that it will be the outcome of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

When I speak to my amendment, I will make the case for it. I would actually put the noble Baroness’s arguments on their head: if the purpose of the Bill was to stop BDS campaigns, it should have been about that. Our problem—and my noble friend’s problem—is that it is going to be much broader in scope, and will include things that this Government want to achieve. That is why these amendments are quite important.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I accept that this goes beyond the narrow BDS campaign that has been focused on Israel. Nevertheless, it is a concern for a number of us that the Bill will be effective as regards its impact on actions by UK public authorities towards dealings with Israel, which is why I raised it.

To finish, my concern on this score was underlined by the action of the UN human rights special rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This person wrote to the Local Government Pension Scheme in 2021 with a “request for action”, which included divestment from companies that are involved in the Occupied Territories. Here we have someone associated with the UN Human Rights Council telling our Local Government Pension Scheme to carry out divestment activities. That is why this whole area is so concerning.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

How does the noble Baroness think that that advice—I have not seen it—compares with the advice of her own Government in relation to the Occupied Territories?

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I think we discussed this briefly on the previous day of Committee. The Government highlight the risks associated with dealings in relation to the Occupied Territories but do not call for divestment. Very explicitly, that is not the case.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Is not the noble Baroness making my point? It is a risk which the Government have highlighted in their own policy on the Occupied Territories. They are illegal, and have no legal status, and that investment could be at risk. The noble Baroness should make up her mind about what she is arguing.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

The issue of risk is a separate issue, dealt with in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. I was talking about later amendments which seek to apply UN principles to local government pension schemes. This is a fairly large group, and I think we have got a little cross-wired on which issues affect which part.

To conclude, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, has tabled a stand-part debate on Clause 12, which is in this group. I hope he is not serious about taking local government pension schemes out of the Bill. The actions of the special rapporteur in our domestic affairs are proof enough that we need local government pension schemes firmly within the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, I also belatedly declare my interest as a beneficiary of the Local Government Pension Scheme.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, suggests that we are using the Bill to address a problem that has not happened, which prompts me to say that there are genuine concerns that it might happen. I come back to the point that I made in one of the interventions: the concern that we all have about this Bill is that its scope goes well beyond the concerns and the remedy in the manifesto. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and my noble friend are quite right to point out the litigation risks.

My noble friend also raised what I have repeatedly said: that this legislation can have a chilling effect that we do not want. We have a Government making all kinds of guidance. On the local government pension funds, we have specific regulations. All pension funds have a fiduciary duty. Noble Lords have raised the point about the duties of people responsible for making these decisions. The Bill will make those duties even more complex. When things become even more complex, people avoid doing the right thing. That is one of the important considerations.

I want to repeat what my noble friend Lord Davies mentioned. Talking as an old-fashioned trade unionist, I say that members’ pensions and pension funds are their deferred wages, yet there is an idea that somehow those do not belong to them and are not their responsibility. Most of the members primarily want those funds protected for their future security. They do not want political and moral considerations to play a part. They want them to be covered by the points that my noble friend Lady Drake has mentioned. No matter what is said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Noakes, this could impact the ability of those responsible for managing these funds to make decisions that take into account risk and other considerations to protect those funds. That comes from the potential for them to be challenged.

I have read some of the briefings on this. The ESG point is quite an important one. Many funds and investment pools in local government pension schemes work individually and collectively to improve corporate behaviour and long-term value of the funds, including through engagement in shareholder action at their AGMs. This is reflected in the statutory guidance that my noble friends have been referring to about administrating authorities formulating a policy to deal with their stewardship responsibilities. It is likely that engagement of this type would be undermined by the Bill.

I again come back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. When seeking to address behaviours by a company that involve significant financial, legal and reputational risk, there are many occasions when this will have geographical implications. We have seen, for example, the briefings on the use of tax havens by companies and the use of surveillance equipment. We have heard of the Uighur internment camps where bonded labour is encouraged by public authorities, particularly the kafala system. We will come on to another group on employment law, but the definition of the exceptions is very narrowly drawn in this Schedule. The Bill is unlikely to allow decision-makers to consider those behaviours.

It is unclear whether decision-makers in the LGPS could be accountable for screening selection decisions made by global equity funds where country-specific risks have been considered. That is an important point. My noble friend Lord Davies is absolutely right. As a trade unionist all my working life, I have seen the responsibilities of those who look after these pension funds. They should be common throughout. Why are we differentiating between local government workers and something beyond local government workers? Why should we have these different standards? It is really important that everyone who takes that responsibility of oversight, as a trustee or in management of the schemes, has those same principles of fiduciary duty and taking risks into account.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

What is the noble Lord’s view, given this fundamental difference between local authority pension schemes and all other pension schemes except unfunded ones? They do not belong to the Pension Protection Fund, have no protection in that regard whatever and do not pay a levy to the Pension Protection Fund. Therefore, ultimately does he believe that these would not be and are not in any way underwritten by Government and Parliament? Why would they be excluded?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend Lord Davies responded to that point. The reality is that there is nothing explicitly guaranteeing them. The Pension Protection Fund is not that old. I remember companies going bust and shareholders and other people getting the money and workers losing their pensions. You have only to look at Mirror Group Newspapers to see what can happen there. We want a common duty and responsibility. This Bill undermines that. That is the point that my noble friend Lord Davies was making. It is also the point that my noble friend Lady Drake is making. There are common principles. We do not want the creation of uncertainty when trying to implement a manifesto decision. I have repeated my plea to the Minister to sit down with us and work out a better way of implementing this manifesto commitment. This Bill is not doing that job and I have yet to meet a member of the Conservative Party who believes that it does. We need to sort this out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I will cover that later in my response. There is a point about territoriality, which we will come on to address.

Additionally, the drafting of the guidance referenced in the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, does not change our view of the scope of this exception. I agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes’ assessment that the amendment could cause some confusion. If we were to accept it, it might raise questions about what considerations relevant to “financial value” and “practical utility” actually capture if they do not capture risk assessment.

I know that the noble Baroness will be disappointed that the Government are unable to accept her amendment, but we did not brush it aside and looked carefully at what she said at our helpful meeting. However, I hope that she is reassured by the Government’s position that the Bill’s current drafting adequately addresses her concerns, with that clarification.

Before I turn to other amendments, I will address the noble Baroness’s point about the impact of judicial review on LGPSs. I will provide a fuller response to the detail in the later group that was referred to in the debate. The Government believe that it is right that companies that have been the target of boycotts and divestment campaigns can challenge these decisions through the courts. There are safeguards in place to prevent undue or nuisance claims. None the less, the number of examples of administering authorities participating in BDS campaigns is relatively small; therefore, we do not anticipate a large burden on the courts.

Amendment 45, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, would remove management decisions from the Bill’s definition of “fund investment decision”, with a view to ensuring that the ban does not apply to the stewardship activities of administering authorities of LGPSs. I confirm, as we agreed at our meeting, that stewardship activity would be an example of a management decision.

It is right that the ban applies to stewardship. Otherwise, administering authorities could, as part of the stewardship of their investments, ask companies in which they have invested to engage in boycotts and divestment campaigns. If this was allowed, campaigners would be emboldened to lobby local government pension funds to ask companies in which they invest to boycott and divest. These campaigns distract local administering authorities from their core duties and could contribute to community tensions. We believe that allowing this kind of activity would undermine the ban.

The Bill contains an exception to the ban for considerations that a decision-maker considers relevant to the financial value or practical utility of an investment. Therefore, it would not prevent public authorities asking companies in which they invest to consider matters that they consider may affect the long-term value of their investments.

I understand that the noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady Janke, are concerned that this position conflicts with the Government’s wider policy on stewardship. We do not consider this to be the case. This is an extremely narrow Bill that will place restrictions only on the ability of the LGPSs’ administering authorities to make territorial considerations in their investment decisions that are influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct. LGPSs’ administering authorities will still be able, through effective stewardship, to exert a positive influence on investee companies to promote strong governance, manage risk, increase accountability and drive improvements in the management of environmental, social and corporate governance issues.

Administering authorities are ultimately responsible for setting the investment strategy of their funds, having taken proper advice. This includes setting their asset allocations to achieve a diversified portfolio of investments which overall is suitable to meet liabilities, as well as setting their approach to responsible investment, in line with statutory guidance. The Bill will support administering authorities to remain focused on their core duties, protecting the long-term financial interests of beneficiaries.

Amendment 46A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, would provide that a pension fund in scope of the ban can make territorial considerations influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct when making decisions in line with certain investment guidelines published by the UN. The Bill will apply only to campaigns that target countries and territories specifically, and therefore will not prevent the adoption of ESG requirements that are not specific to a country, such as modern slavery requirements. For example, to address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, the Bill will in no way prevent the LGPS administering authorities divesting from fossil fuels, as long as this policy is applied to all countries and territories consistently. Similarly, the Bill will not prevent the administering authorities divesting from companies implicated in human rights abuses, provided the policy is applied to all countries, rather than identifying particular countries or territories.

The Bill will not prevent LGPS administering authorities making a decision in line with guidelines published by the UN, as long as this does not entail the public authority having regard to a territorial consideration in a way that indicates moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct. For example, the Bill will not prevent public authorities having a policy to comply with all UN sanctions or UN Security Council resolutions, as that is not a territorial consideration. However, the policy must be genuinely non-country specific—

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Can the Minister specifically address the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in relation to territorial extent? I have in mind, because it was raised in other groups and discussions, companies that attempted to have factories or investments in the Occupied Territories and might then have withdrawn from those investments. I want her to focus on that. If a company decides that it will open a plant in the Occupied Territories and will not have the benefit of legal protection under international law, and it would be contrary to the advice the Government have given, and if a local government pension scheme then said, “Well, that company is putting our investment at risk and therefore we will disinvest”, would that be legal under the Bill?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I can confirm that LGPSs will be allowed to divest from, say, the settlements or Israel if the sole reason is that the investment is financially risky. It is if it is caught by the flavour of the Bill that we run into a problem—

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

It is important for clarification because the Government’s own advice says “It’s risky because it’s not legal and therefore won’t have that international law protection”. So it is very good if the Minister is being absolutely clear in relation to the Occupied Territories.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Perhaps I could just finish on the other points. It makes perfect sense to ensure that, when having regard to ESG requirements, these are applied consistently by LGPS administering authorities and do not single out particular countries or territories—because it is the latter that will breach the ban, as I think we all now understand.

The Bill allows for a number of exceptions, including considerations relating to labour market misconduct, modern slavery and human trafficking. Therefore, the Bill will in no way prevent the administering authorities adhering to modern slavery guidance.

Finally, I turn to the proposition from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, that Clause 12 should not stand part of the Bill—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

I will say my last sentence.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The rules say “normally brief” but I think the Committee would like to hear from my noble friend on this important issue.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

With respect, I am not stopping the noble Baroness; I am just asking her to be brief.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Warner (CB)]

My Lords, I intervene briefly, not because I am an expert on international law but because I have a great sense of déjà vu about the way this debate is opening up by comparison with the previous debate. The issue seems to be the creation of uncertainty about what the law means. That was the issue dominating the previous debate: that the trustees of pension schemes would be left in a state of uncertainty if we did not put clearer language in the Bill. This debate is starting to go through the same process but in another area, where there could be uncertainty about what people do in interpreting this legislation before they make their decisions. We are opening up issues that the Government need to attend to, to make sure that the Bill is clear to the people who will be required to implement it.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 32 and I want to focus my main comments on it. The contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, is a helpful one because he is focusing on strengthening this.

One of the problems, when we look at paragraph 8 and the implications of international conventions and the ILO, is that it is sometimes difficult to put it into concrete examples. The problem I had—and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, touched on this before—is when something goes into a territorial policy. I think of the debate we had on construction in Qatar and the British companies that were operating in building those sites, where the Qatari authorities were forced to have inspections by the ILO and forced to respond to a report that said their legal standards were not adequate. It could be that, at that time, a lot of investors, and perhaps even public authorities, would say that they should not be investing in companies that are adopting those sorts of laws—namely, those applied by the Qataris. Many textiles supply chains go into, for example, Bangladesh. The biggest fashion industry manufacturer is in Vietnam. The example of the Rana Plaza disaster, which we mentioned the last time we debated the Bill in Committee, required ILO intervention and British companies to say, “We will not invest”. Some of the most popular high street companies used strong leverage to get a change of policy by the Bangladesh Government. These are all legitimate concerns.

The fear is that this legislation will stop people making those sorts of decisions, or even expressing those sorts of opinions. It is that chilling effect again. Whoever replies to this debate—I thought it might be the noble Lord—should focus on the kind of concrete examples I have given, and give us an assurance that paragraph 8 includes all the things that my noble friend mentioned and that we will not have a situation where we are limited to very strict criminal things, which everyone accepts, such as slave labour and forced labour. There are lots of other examples. In the Rana Plaza example, people were forced to work in such dangerous conditions that hundreds lost their lives. Many of them were widows, leaving children to cope on their own.

It is important that we bring this debate back to some sort of reality. What are we talking about? What are the impacts of these sorts of things? We start off with a manifesto commitment on BDS, and now we are into the territory of saying that there will be a limit on what public bodies can do to ensure compliance with proper labour standards—things that this Government have been strongly advocating for.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, as I and my noble friend the Minister have set out in responses to previous groups in Committee, the Government take their obligations under international conventions and UN Security Council resolutions very seriously. This Bill is consistent with those obligations. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that this Government do not take these responsibilities under international law seriously.

Amendment 30, from the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, would exempt from the ban considerations relevant to whether the decision in question would place the UK in breach of its obligations under international conventions, including the genocide convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and any UN Security Council resolution.

As my noble friend the Minister explained in an earlier group, where a judgment has been made that a party has breached international law, it is for the Government, and not a public authority, to determine the appropriate response. It is right for this Bill not to give public authorities discretion to engage in BDS campaigns based on their own interpretations of international law. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, on this point.

I will touch on the genocide convention in particular; I am grateful for the intervention of my noble friend Lady Noakes. Genocide is a crime and, like other crimes, whether it has occurred should be decided by competent courts and judges, after consideration of all the evidence available, in the context of a credible judicial process. It is the long-standing policy of successive UK Governments that judgment as to whether genocide has occurred is for a competent national or international court to determine, not public authorities.

I reassure the Committee that nothing in the Bill will prevent public authorities complying with the UK’s obligations under international conventions. It is not necessary to broaden the international law exemption in this way, and so I respectfully request that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, withdraw the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blower.

Amendment 32, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, would broaden the existing exception for considerations that relate to labour-related misconduct. I assure noble Lords that the Government are of the view that employers who seriously violate the rights of their workforce are not fit to compete for public contracts. That is why the Bill already contains an exception to the ban for considerations made as part of an investment or procurement decision that relates to labour-related misconduct. This exception mirrors the approach taken in the Procurement Act 2023, which this House agreed in the previous Session. Public authorities can use the exception in the Bill when assessing whether a particular supplier has been complicit in modern slavery or a contract risks involving modern slavery. They must do so on a supplier-by-supplier basis, rather than by taking a blanket approach on the basis of a supplier’s country of origin. Public authorities will be able to do the same for investment decisions, assessing modern slavery risks for each investment target, rather than taking a blanket country-based approach.

Additionally, the Procurement Act 2023 provides a range of serious labour violations as grounds for exclusion. These must be considered for every supplier wishing to participate in each procurement within scope of the Act. The Act expanded the scope of the grounds on which suppliers must or may be excluded from procurements for labour violations, and added new grounds, including failure to pay the national minimum wage and offences relating to employment agencies. To reiterate, this is mirrored in this Bill. The exceptions to the Bill, just like the exclusion grounds in the Procurement Act, include considerations relating to various labour market, slavery and human trafficking offences. These are based on the serious labour offences within the purview of the director of labour market enforcement.

It would not make sense to expand the exception to the ban beyond what has already been recently agreed by the House in the Procurement Act. This would put the Bill out of step with that Act and create confusion for public authorities in scope of both this Bill and the Procurement Act.

The grounds for excluding suppliers in the Procurement Act are framed in terms of UK labour offences in our domestic legislation—and are, therefore, binding—rather than by reference to International Labour Organization conventions, to provide greater clarity to contracting authorities regarding when the grounds apply. I believe that this confirms the point from my noble friend Lady Noakes.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, inevitably this group has raised the wider issues that we have debated within it. A week has not gone by without either Statement repeats or Questions that I have contributed to. Since 7 October, I have visited the region; I have visited the kibbutzim, the hostage families and the illegal outposts and settlements. I say, in the most sincere way I can, to the Minister, that I do not believe that this particular part of the Bill and the Bill as a whole will reduce any of the tensions or make a complex situation any simpler or clearer. For many people, it will make the situation even more complex and divisive at the very time when we need there to be more common ground. So it is with regret that I need to support the amendments in this group.

Paragraph 20 of the impact assessment states:

“The intended outcome of the Bill is to ensure there is a consistent approach to”


UK Government foreign policy. However, it should also be noted that there has been inconsistency in the statements of Ministers over recent months. On 12 March, the Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, replied to my question on the occupation of Gaza:

“It is our legal position, and has been for some time, that Israel is the occupying power in Gaza”.—[Official Report, 12/3/24; col. 1913.]


However, on 24 April, a Home Office Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, replied to my question on Gaza:

“I might dispute the noble Lord’s premise there: I am not sure that I would characterise it as an occupying power”.—[Official Report, 24/4/24; col. 1466.]


So there is inconsistency even between government departments.

I would have thought that the definitive position on the topic would be the statement from the Government in their document on the strategic objectives of a UK-Israel free trade agreement, which sets the parameters for UK trade and investment with the State of Israel. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, is listening, as it states in very clear terms:

“The UK is clear that it does not recognise the Occupied Palestinian Territories as part of Israel, including the settlements. The UK is clear that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal under international law. As set out in FCDO guidance on overseas business risk, there are clear risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements”.


This Bill is a very substantial change to government policy that is still extant in the discussions between the UK Government and the Government of Israel over an FTA. I have no opposition to those discussions when it comes to UK free trade—as we said at Second Reading, these Benches do not support the BDS campaign and never have—but we cannot have this Bill and that statement at the same time. Which is the superior element? We know, I think, that when this Bill becomes legislation, it will trump the statement, but there needs to be a change in government policy so that the Bill does not state simply that authorities must adhere to government policy, because the Bill is changing government policy.

Currently, a business choosing to invest or carry out business in the Occupied Palestinian Territories will be referred to the business risk and it can make its own judgment as to whether that risk will outweigh the benefit—or it may be liable for legal considerations. This Bill will prohibit it from making that decision, which is wrong and makes no sense for our relationship with either the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the State of Israel.

It is doubly wrong because, as many noble Lords may know, the issue is not just about the settlements. There are also outposts. The fastest growth recently has been in outposts in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. For Members of the Committee who may not be aware, outposts—the fastest-growing element—are illegal under Israeli law. This Bill would prohibit anyone making a decision to invest in something which is illegal under Israeli law. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that point, because it is a very significant issue.

My noble friend Lord Oates made a very convincing argument about the inclusion in Clause 1(7) of an equivalence in law, notwithstanding the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. I am not going to make a semantic argument about whether there is a comma, or an “or” that should have been an “and”. The issue of substance is perfectly clear. It is the argument that the noble Lord said he would reflect on when I asked him about this question.

Why does this Bill provide protections to the Occupied Palestinian Territories when they have not asked for that? Indeed, they have specifically asked not to have it, because it is not a protection; it is an inhibitor for the British authorities to police the current British approach of advising on risk for investments in the illegal settlement areas of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It removes protection, and the concern about the subsection is that it removes it in perpetuity, because it does not allow Ministers to change the schedules when it comes to singling out the outposts that I referred to before. We might have to rely only on the element of sanctions when we have designated individuals who are settlers. That is the only time there would be the prevention of having an economic relationship with them. So, instead of offering a protection, the Bill singles out a diminishing of the ability of those within the Occupied Palestinian Territories to protect themselves effectively.

I can inform the Committee that this is not an esoteric or theoretical argument; it is active now. Every six months the British consul writes to the Israeli Government seeking compensation for settler violence—compensation which seeks redress through the Israeli courts. The investment risks are real, but the Bill would prohibit any British decision-maker from taking that into consideration. That cannot be right.

Finally, I regret the fact that Ministers have given inconsistent statements on the position of the Occupied Territories. There is confusion about the investments. I ask one final question of the Minister. There may well be—and in fact there are—public-private partnerships that include British investors in enterprises both in Israel and in the Palestinian Authority area. If their partner in Israel or the Palestinian Authority area chose to stop that activity as a result of their own Government’s policy—we know that that is happening, particularly in Tel Aviv—the British partner would be prohibited from ending that agreement. Surely that is a nonsensical position. So my appeal to the Minister is to pause and reflect, even at this late stage, not only the diplomatic consequences of this measure but on its practical implications, which could be considerable.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo a number of the noble Lord’s comments. I must admit I find it difficult to understand how, at a moment of crisis in the Middle East, the Government have allowed Michael Gove to proceed with this reckless diplomatic and cavalier approach. How can we be a credible voice for a two-state solution when they legislate at home against their own foreign policy? That is the key issue.

I said repeatedly at Second Reading and in many groups that I recognised that there was a problem. My party recognises that there is a problem. We do not support BDS; we oppose it. How, in this very delicate situation, do we deal with it? You do not deal with it by undermining the very thing that would bring about peace and stability for Israel. Sadly, as we have heard from across the House, the Bill means a protracted legal battle in the courts. It will create more uncertainty than it addresses and, worse, it simply fuels yet more division. It will have achieved nothing. In fact, it could make matters worse. That is my position, and my party’s position.

On my previous amendment, we hoped to find a way forward where we could work together without causing those divisions. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, too; I have seen his work in action in Israel. I have seen my noble friend Lord Turnberg’s work trying to build intercommunity respect, peace and activity. I applaud that work and want to see it continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am clear that the Occupied Territories are separate. I think that that three-quarters answers the noble Lord’s question but let me reflect further. I certainly would not want to mislead him on such an important point.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Can I also ask a question? The Minister mentioned that the Delegated Powers Committee did not comment on the Bill in a negative way. On the point about the amendment on free speech, I know that we have other clauses to deal with it, but the Constitution Committee was quite clear that Clauses 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) unduly limit freedom of speech by preventing public bodies from stating that they would—or even might—make a procurement or investment decision. That committee asked this House to consider whether Clause 4 should be removed from the Bill, so the Minister’s assertion is not quite true. Regarding the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner—the Constitution Committee shares some of his views.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Clearly, I do not think that we will be able to agree on this this evening. I replied to the excellent report by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and the Constitution Committee, and I will refresh my memory on that, if the noble Lord will allow.

In the meantime, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who asked about the Government’s position on Gaza—it is that Israel remains the occupying power in Gaza, as advised by the FCDO.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Yes, but does the Minister know why it says that? It is because an occupying power has duties—particularly under international humanitarian law—which is why the Foreign Secretary is monitoring this and has repeatedly said to the House that he will continue to monitor it. Israel has duties as an occupying power.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Indeed, in situations of occupation, international humanitarian law expressly requires the occupier—I think this is the point that the noble Lord is making—to the fullest extent of the means available to it, to ensure food and medical supplies for the population of the occupation territory. We expect Israel to fulfil its obligations, and for all parties to adhere to humanitarian law. I am glad to be able to repeat that.

Nothing in the Bill changes the Government’s support for a two-state solution. We believe that open and honest discussions, rather than imposing sanctions or supporting anti-Israeli boycotts, best support our efforts to help progress towards a negotiated solution. This is the position shared by the whole Government. But I continue to believe that it is important to retain for Parliament the ability to scrutinise a decision that would be so detrimental to community cohesion, through primary legislation and subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. I therefore respectfully ask that the noble Lord withdraw his amendment.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that these amendments simply highlight the mess that the Government have got themselves into with the Bill as a whole. The Bill imposes some extraordinary obligations on public bodies, which I presume is the reason for paragraph 6 of the Schedule—it is necessary only because of those extraordinary measures.

Most of the amendments in this group do not deal with the fundamental issue that the Bill is incoherent. Amendment 18, in trying to deal with this issue, potentially gives huge powers to Ministers to profoundly shape or change the nature of the Bill by their powers to set out what should be regarded and disregarded in terms of international law obligations. Amendment 28 pretends that the overall issue with the Bill—which is the reason that paragraph 6 of the Schedule exists in the first place—does not exist. Fundamentally, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, this is a very bad Bill. These amendments just underline why.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that I wish the Bill was specific and addressed the manifesto commitment of the Conservative Party. The Labour Party has made it absolutely clear that we are opposed to boycotts, disinvestment and singling out Israel. The problem with the Bill is that it is wide. It covers all kinds of issues that will place public bodies in a very difficult position. In the debate on this group of amendments, we have senior legal people all saying basically the same thing: this will end up in court. When that fear of ending up in court occurs—when people read a law and say, “This is so complicated that we don’t know what it means; it will end up with us in court”—what happens then? It is the chilling effect. There will be decisions made not in the interest of the public body but on the basis of it not being sure that it is capable of making this decision. That is the important thing.

I support my noble friend’s amendment on extending the exceptions. The Schedule lays out other obligations on public bodies, not least very positive legislation that this Government have implemented on modern slavery, on other international law issues, on labour-related misconduct and so on. They are naturally there because these public bodies have already been told that these obligations are on them. There will be a lot of confusion. I agree with my noble friend’s point about taking into account potential breaches of international law by the UK but not those by other countries in the supply chain. Most of our experience of labour issues is that those supply chains can be incredibly convoluted. You do not know the origin of certain products. We have had debates in this Chamber about the use of cotton grown in Xinjiang by slave labour and being sold in British shops. Companies have decided to find out where that goes.

My noble friend also raised the Rana Plaza disaster of 2013. I remember it well, and I am sure that the Minister does, too, because many of our retail companies were selling products made in factories that were incredibly unsafe and used child labour. That disaster will stay in my mind. The government response at the time was, “There are potential breaches of international law. We will give the ILO extra money to go and investigate Bangladesh so that it commits to its proper responsibilities”. We did that.

The Government in this legislation are saying, “There are all sorts of factors that we can’t take into account—and even if we can, there are exceptions, the Secretary of State has to be involved, and we know it’s going to end up in court.” That is the problem with this legislation. It is not straightforward dealing with BDS. I wish it were. We will come on to that in the other group.

I have been trying to work out at what point I should read out the guidance on the Occupied Territories in Palestine that the Government have issued to companies. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, please read it. The noble Baroness is nodding; she has read it. Great. I shall read it into the record, although it may take longer than the 10 minutes I am allowed.

“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. We will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties … There are therefore clear risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements, and we do not encourage or offer support to such activity. Financial transactions, investments, purchases, procurements as well as other economic activities (including in services like tourism) in Israeli settlements or benefiting Israeli settlements, entail legal and economic risks stemming from the fact that the Israeli settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied land and are not recognised as a legitimate part of Israel’s territory. This may result in disputed titles to the land, water, mineral or other natural resources which might be the subject of purchase or investment … UK citizens and businesses should be aware of the potential reputational implications of getting involved in economic and financial activities in settlements, as well as possible abuses of the rights of individuals. Those contemplating any economic or financial involvement in settlements should seek appropriate legal advice”.


That is the Government’s advice, recently issued. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, we are saying that there is one policy for the private sector and another for the public sector. That is absolutely crazy. There are so many contradictions in this legislation that it beggars belief. I hope that the Minister will think hard about the complex nature of the Bill, and perhaps give it due consideration. I shall not repeat my comments on the next group, but we have often said, “Let’s sit down together and come to a solution that meets the requirements that were set out in the manifesto”. This legislation does not; that is why it is so wrong.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, I will address the various amendments tabled in relation to international law. If the Committee is content, I will start by addressing Amendment 31, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. It is a wide-ranging amendment, as some have said, which would allow public authorities to choose not to procure a good, service or works if their manufacture, provision or supply may have involved a breach of international law. Where a judgment has been made that a party has breached international law, it is for the Government and not a public authority to determine the appropriate response. This amendment would give public authorities too much discretion to engage in boycotts and divestment campaigns and would undermine the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I note what the noble Baroness says, but the Bill does not change UK foreign policy. That is for FCDO and the UK Government to decide. This applies only to public authorities and to investment and procurement, which I have continued to emphasise, because I think some of the discussion is needlessly wide-ranging—and, if I may, I will now make progress.

The Government, as I was saying, in relation to the Palestinian Occupied Territories, recognise the risk associated with economic and financial activities in the Israeli settlements, but we do not support boycotts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. They are inherently divisive and may lead to inadvertent negative effects on Palestinians, as well as undermining the aim of the Bill, which is to ensure that we speak with one voice internationally. None of this changes existing government guidance.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

This is a fundamental point. I have made clear the Labour Party’s position on boycotts. We are talking about investment in factories in illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories. What is the noble Baroness saying to a public body that realises that an investment it had has suddenly transferred from Jordan to a factory in the Occupied Territories? Is she saying that that public body cannot say that the investment is in breach? It causes reputational risk and could fundamentally affect the value of the investment, because it is illegal. What is the noble Baroness saying: that we are going to put it in this Bill, come what may, because that is the foreign policy? It makes no sense to me at all. The Government are talking with two voices. The FCDO is saying one thing and this Minister is saying something completely different.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I do not think there is a difference between us and the FCDO. If I may, I will move on to the other amendments, because I am trying, as I always do, to answer the questions noble Lords have asked. There are a number of different amendments in this group, and I think we should look at them in the round. I will turn to Amendments 18, 28 and 29.

I will start with Amendment 28, which is a probing amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, which would remove paragraph 6 of the schedule. She said that was a direct approach. I thank her, more generally, for her support for this legislation and for providing this opportunity to explain why this provision was included in the Bill. Paragraph 6 of the schedule makes an exception to the ban for considerations that a decision-maker in a public authority reasonably considers to be relevant to compliance with the UK’s obligations under international law.

Amendments 29 and 18, as the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, has explained, would remove the existing exception and replace it with a narrower exception that would only allow public authorities to consider international law in a way that is influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct, in line with regulations made by the Secretary of State. I would like to thank him, and my noble friend Lady Noakes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for raising this matter. I acknowledge the noble Lord’s and my noble friend’s valuable expertise in this area— of course, they have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is not in his place, my noble friends Lady Altmann and Lord Wolfson.

There are very limited examples of when this clause might be relevant to public authorities, such as when abiding by sanctions under international law. It is therefore intended as a safeguard. I appreciate the noble Lord’s concern that public authorities could make their own subjective interpretations of foreign policy that are not aligned with the foreign policy of the UK Government. This exception can only be exercised by public authorities in a way that is “reasonable”. It would be up to the enforcement authority, or the courts, to determine whether the exception was exercised reasonably.

However, I appreciate noble Lords’ various concerns on this matter, including the impact on the courts, and the Government will consider these. We will no doubt return to the international law issue on Report. I thank noble Lords for their insightful contributions—

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

19: 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 a Statement for the purposes of this section.(4D) Public authorities must have regard to the guidance referenced in subsection (4C) when devising a Statement for the purposes of this section.”Member’s explanatory 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—the policy would have to be applied consistently, and in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving this amendment and speaking to Amendment 48, I stress that we are very happy to sit down with the noble Baroness and her departmental colleagues to see whether there is a way forward to address the fundamental principle of not outlawing BDS but ensuring that decisions are not simply made to single out one particular nation—and that is of course Israel.

There is a way forward. In our view, it is not wrong for public bodies to take ethical investment decisions—we had a lengthy discussion about this in the earlier group —but those decisions must be consistent. We have heard many legitimate criticisms of foreign Governments and many Ministers have expressed concerns. They may not have clear policy, but they have expressed concerns.

In these amendments, which will hopefully have the support of the Government, we are trying to stop people who seek to target Israel alone, hold it to different standards from other countries, question its right to exist and equate the actions of the Israeli Government to Jewish people, in doing so creating hate and hostility against Jewish people in the United Kingdom. We have seen a lot of evidence of that in recent times and it is completely wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful that Hansard will record the contradictory nature of the noble Lord’s intervention on me, when it comes to the nonsensical nature of the point of seeking to influence groups. Let me turn to why—

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am hesitant to interrupt an interruption, but I will. One of the issues we have discussed—it is about Clause 4 as well—is what hat somebody is wearing. For example, a leader of a council might go to a political conference and argue a particular policy. He is a decision-maker but is not performing a decision-making function. The people who might hear his speech at that political conference might think, “He is our leader; he will influence us”, so there is an impact on people being able to advocate particular policies. Is that not true?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I think it is. Other noble Lords may think not. I am looking forward to the Minister’s response to make sure that this is clear.

I wish to move the Committee on to a specific question about British International Investment. That is a body which receives its funding from government—from the taxpayer—but it is charged with making investment decisions in emerging economies. It operates under its ethical investment policy. It has a toolkit and operates under its own set of compliance rules when it comes to how it defines human rights. It takes international obligations under its co-ordination. That policy is not set by Ministers and is not determined by the Government. It makes its own, independent decisions on which countries it invests in.

British International Investment could choose, under its toolkit, not to invest in any of the human rights priority countries. My reading of this Bill is that this will be prohibited. Unless the Government specifically state that BII should not make investment decisions, BII would be in the scope of this Bill. That would be another very retrograde step for the UK with a development institution such as BII leading the charge on international human rights determinations for investments. I would be grateful if the Minister could state that BII is specifically exempt from this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I will come back to the text of the proposed amendment. I hope it is in order if I use my short intervention essentially to ask the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, a series of questions. Obviously, he need not reply now, but I just wish to understand how this amendment is meant to work. I will leave the broader points to one side for the moment, although I always want to ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, with whom I often disagree, remains proudly unneutered in everything he wants to say, here and elsewhere.

As I understand Amendment 19 and the proposed clause, it seeks to enable a public authority to publish policy criteria. Those policy criteria, as we see in proposed new subsection (4B), relate to

“disinvestment in cases concerning contravention of human rights”.

The public authority’s criteria have to do two things. First, as the noble Lord said, they “must be applied consistently” to all countries and, secondly, they must be consistent with the guidance published by the Secretary of State, although we are not helped at all as to what that guidance would, might or should be. So let us assume—

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Can I interrupt the noble Lord? I was going to do it at the end, but it might help the Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said that this would create loopholes, and the important point I wanted to make is that there is nothing wrong with public bodies taking ethical investment and procurement decisions. The reason there is nothing wrong in that is that the Government advocate it. As my noble friend Lord Hain said, we have the Government’s current national action plan on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights —and by the way, the Minister says in the introduction that the Government firmly believe that

“the promotion of business, and the respect for human rights, go hand in hand”.

So we are being consistent here, in this amendment, with current government policy.

My noble friend read it out; I will quickly repeat that, in current guidance, the recommendation of the Government is to

“continue to ensure that UK Government procurement rules allow for human rights-related matters to be reflected in the procurement of public goods, works and services, taking into account the 2014 EU Public Procurement Directives”—

the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, mentioned this—

“and Crown Commercial Service guidance on compliance with wider international obligations when letting public contracts”.

So I am not reinventing something; it is there. We have good policy; let us make sure it is reflected in this legislation.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for setting that out so clearly. It brings me to the question I hope he might be able to pick up later, so that I can really understand how this works. We have a public authority, which publishes a set of policy criteria relating to disinvestment in cases concerning contravention of human rights. As he has just set out—and certainly implied by what he just said—it would not be required, for example, to adopt the ECHR in full; it could highlight certain things.

What would happen if a local or public authority decided to say, “We are not going to disinvest or have a policy of disinvesting from countries which do not, for example, allow gay marriage; we will not have a policy of disinvesting from countries that discriminate against women, but we will have a policy, which we will apply consistently throughout the world, of disinvesting from countries that are in control of occupied or disputed territory”? Under the noble Lord’s approach, would that be permitted?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

Forgive me, but I think I did mention the guidance right at the beginning of my remarks. Indeed, I made the point that I did not understand that the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, had identified what that guidance would, should or might contain—so I think we are on the same page.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Sorry to interrupt, but I thought I did, at the beginning, when I moved the amendment. Sadly, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, did not refer to my opening remarks when I moved it. I made it absolutely clear that there is a difference between a public body having an ethical investment and procurement policy and an organisation which, as some individuals are trying to do, seeks to target Israel alone, and have standards for Israel that are completely different from those for other countries. I made that absolutely clear.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

To be absolutely clear, my question, which I hope the noble Lord will pick up when he responds, is this. My putative public authority has a consistent policy, which it applies consistently to all countries around the world, of not disinvesting merely because a foreign country does not allow gay marriage, or treats women in a discriminatory fashion, but of disinvesting when a foreign country is in control of occupied or disputed territory. Would that be permitted, or not permitted, under the noble Lord’s amendment? I look forward to his answer in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I will need to write to him on the specific case of BII, as I do not have the details to hand.

In answer to one of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, the Bill is fulfilling a manifesto commitment to prevent BDS influencing public authorities in undermining community cohesion, which is why Israel is named in the Bill and why there are currently, as I believe, no exemptions. As I think the noble Lord is aware, we are intending to add exemptions under statutory instrument following the passing of the Bill.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We are going to address the issue in the next group, so I am reluctant to make this point, but it is not just Israel that is listed in the Bill.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

I apologise for my error and take the noble Lord’s correction. I have tried to focus my comments on the amendments and the arguments put forward today. I am conscious that there have been a lot of very important points made and a lot of questions asked. I have tried to answer the ones that I can, and I will write to noble Lords where I have not picked them up.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

This has been an incredibly useful discussion and debate, but this is not a probing amendment. It is an attempt to bring two sides of the House together. I made it very clear in my opening remarks that we oppose the BDS campaigns we have seen. I do not accept them. They are very damaging. I think I made the point that they have sought to target Israel alone, hold it to different standards, question its right to exist—which is wrong—and equate the actions of the Israeli Government with Jewish people, in doing so creating the very hate that my noble friend raised.

To be honest, I feel as if I am in a Catch-22 situation. On the one hand, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, says that there are loopholes, but this is not a restrictive, confined piece of legislation, dealing with BDS campaigns specifically. It has much wider implications. Everyone keeps talking about public bodies making foreign policy. No one questions the right of the Government to make foreign policy. The Government’s duty is to speak for the whole country on foreign policy —no one doubts that—but the Government have placed a duty on public bodies to have ethical human rights considerations in their investment and procurement policies.

We will come on to it in other groups, and I know we keep raising these things, but the sad thing is that the Bill damages our foreign policy. It will implicate us in undermining the very resolutions that we have tabled and supported at the United Nations. That is why we are so concerned, and that is why this amendment, far from giving public bodies the responsibility to decide on foreign policy, agrees with this Government when they speak about—I will quote again, because I think it is really important—

“belief that the promotion of business, and the respect for human rights, go hand in hand”.

When it comes to the statement that a Secretary of State may produce as guidance, is it that public bodies “will have” or “must have” regard to it? I have had many debates on previous legislation about what that might mean, particularly over codes of practice, as the noble Baroness knows, so I am happy to enter into legal dialogue about what that means. It is not unusual to require public bodies to follow that sort of guidance, and we can come up with words for that.

The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, asked questions about the Occupied Territories. We have an existing policy on the Occupied Territories, so if a public body says it will not invest in the Occupied Territories, that is in accordance with the guidance issued by this Government. If it says it is going to ban any investment in Israel, that would be in breach of the code or whatever guidance, because we are against singling out Israel.

Somebody mentioned gay rights. I have been a campaigner for global gay rights for many years, and one of the things I have resisted doing is advocating blanket boycotts because I know that, where we have investment and contacts, the leverage, guidance and engagement we can have can make a big difference. We have changed people’s attitudes through that. The problem with blanket boycotts is that they have the complete opposite effect.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for, I think, giving an answer to my question. My understanding, therefore, is that the answer to my question is yes. The public authority could make the distinction that I identified. In other words, under this amendment a public authority could refuse to trade with Israel on human rights grounds but could none the less trade with Saudi Arabia. That would, as I understand it, be the consequence of the argument. Have I understood correctly?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

No, the noble Lord is not right. That is not what I said. We have guidance about specific investment in the Occupied Territories. That is what the Government issue now. Why is that so confusing?

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

What, then, is the effect of proposed new subsection 4B(b) if not a blanket ban?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Do you mean “must have regard to”?

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Proposed new subsection 4B(b).

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We currently have guidance on human rights and investment decisions. On other groups of amendments we will discuss the whole question of environmental, social and governance issues. When a public body is taking into account investment decisions, as a private company would, it takes into account those sorts of policies. We will come on to pension schemes in a later group. The problem we have at the moment is that this debate is on BDS but we are actually talking about ethical investment policies. No one is concerned about those issues when we have general debates about procurement and ethical policy. This comes down to specific targeting campaigns that are not to do with human rights.

I strongly defend the right of Israel to exist. I strongly defend the right of Israel to defend itself. Those two things go together. If a campaign of BDS is saying that Israel occupied territories in 1948—many of these campaigns talk not about 1973 but about 1948—I do not agree with that. Israel exists and has a mandate to exist. We must respect that, and I strongly believe in it. But when we come to human rights and investment policy decisions, the Government are more than capable of giving guidance on that, because they do so at the moment through the UN guiding principles, the Modern Slavery Act and all the other things that we have done. The Procurement Act even has paragraphs in it as well. So it is not impossible to have the sort of guidance that we are advocating in this amendment.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I simply say that the noble Lord has criticised the wording and language of the Bill quite specifically. If this amendment is to be presented at a later stage, proposed new subsection 4B(b) does not work because it is a blanket ban.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am more than happy to discuss the wording of this amendment and this proposal. We are not advocating blanket bans. There must be a reason for a ban. The FCDO issues a list of countries that have human rights issues—some, such as North Korea, have very clear issues—but they are not all countries where you would ban engagement or investment, or say, “That’s the end of the road”. An ethical investment policy needs to look at a range of issues—basically, the ESG issues that we will come on to in later groups. I do not want to go through them now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said that this Bill will increase anti-Semitism. That is one view. I prefer to observe what is actually happening. We only have to look at what is happening in universities at the moment; we will come on to universities in a later group.

If we look at what has been happening with the encampments that have been springing up in the UK following what has been happening in the US, they are vocally calling for boycott and divestment in relation to Israel—and, indeed, quite a lot worse. This is a very live issue. It is causing much harm on campuses for Jewish students, who are clear that there has been a significant increase in anti-Semitism since this has started. This is not theory; it is actually happening.

Israel is always the focal point for BDS campaigns. The BDS movement itself came into being to attack Israel. I am glad that we are aligned with the noble Lord, Lord Collins, on the need to protect Israel from those activities. From my perspective, if the Bill does nothing else, it should try to protect Israel from boycott and divestment activities. That is why we need Clause 3(7): it underlines the importance of Israel and the particular attacks on Israel.

I accept that the Occupied Territories raise much more difficult issues. In line with the international community, the UK recognises the settlements as illegal, but the practicalities are that this will not be settled conclusively until there is a two-state solution. This is something that cannot be imposed; it will have to be agreed, but that is unlikely to happen very soon. Anyone who has been to Israel or has been in touch with people in Israel will know that the attacks by Hamas on 7 October have left a traumatised Israeli people, for whom the possibility of discussing a two-state solution seems almost unthinkable at this point in time. That is not to deny that that is the right solution in the long term but simply to say that it does not appear to be an immediate, practical problem.

The reality on the ground is that, in the meantime, the unsatisfactory nature of the Occupied Territories is likely to continue. Even if we thought that boycotts and divestments in relation to the Occupied Territories would punish Israel, this ignores the simple fact that there is economic activity in those settlements. Anything that harms that will almost certainly harm Palestinians as much as it harms the people of Israel. We only have to look at what happened when SodaStream, an Israeli company, was forced to withdraw from its activities in the occupied West Bank. The people who really lost out were the Palestinians who lost good, well-paid jobs when that facility had to close.

On our last day in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, pointed me to the FCDO guidance, which I duly went and read; he has read much of it into the record today. The important thing about that guidance is that, although it highlights the risks involved, it does not prohibit anyone in the UK from investing or dealing with those who are active in the Occupied Territories. I believe that this Bill reflects that pragmatic position—that the Occupied Territories are a fact of life—and that, until there is a two-state solution, trying to eliminate it from the Bill does not reflect the practical politics we are facing.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I did indeed read it into the record. Although it did not prohibit investment, it was saying, “Don’t do it. The risks are great. Be aware of those risks and seek legal opinion on them”. We are now debating a Bill that will say that you cannot make a decision based on the advice that the Government have issued.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

The noble Lord is right that the FCDO highlighted the risks and said that businesses involved should seek their own legal advice but it absolutely did not say, “and you mustn’t do it”. It is a fact of life that there will be economic activity in the Occupied Territories and that that may or may not involve businesses from Britain.

The only point I am trying to make is that the Occupied Territories are a fact of life at the moment; there is no easy solution and it is probably not a near-term solution. At the point when it is settled via a two-state solution, they will cease to be Occupied Territories, so that bit of the Bill will cease to have any relevance—but, for the moment, it has relevance. The other point I am trying to make is that anything that deliberately harms that is just as likely to harm Palestinians as it is Israeli citizens.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Let me start by making it clear, if it is necessary, that the Opposition do not support BDS—we made that clear at Second Reading—so my contribution tonight on this group of amendments is about the environment and the exceptions to it. Of course, currently the Bill does not prevent a decision-maker taking environmental misconduct into account. Environmental misconduct is defined as

“conduct that … amounts to an offence”

that causes

“significant harm to the environment”.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said in introducing her amendment, this is quite a narrow exemption. It relies on UK decision-makers being able to be confident as to whether an environmental practice constitutes an offence in the UK or another country. There is no mention of climate change or the need to invest and to make procurement decisions proactively to protect the environment. Unfortunately, my noble friend Lord Dubs, who I know was very keen to address this point, cannot be with us.

Amendment 32C would provide that the Bill does not prevent a decision-maker taking into account the climate crisis and the need to achieve the Paris agreement goal or other climate change goals when making decisions. The Paris agreement goal is to hold the increase in the average global temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, which is a critical threshold. The amendment mirrors the language that is already in statute in the Pensions Schemes Act 2021. The Government included climate change provisions in that Act to require, as the Minister said at the time,

“occupational pension scheme trustees and managers to secure effective governance on the effect of climate change on the scheme”.—[Official Report, 26/2/20; col. GC 156.]

During the debates on those matters, Members of this House spoke of the need for pension schemes not only to consider the financial risks of climate change but to play an active part in combating climate change and achieving the shared international goals, so it is a proactive approach.

One of the fundamental problems we have constantly been addressing in this Bill is whether people will be too cautious: will the Bill have a chilling effect on investment and procurement decisions that we proactively want people to take? We have, on the one hand, legislation that requires pension scheme managers to consider the financial implications of climate change and the transition to a low carbon economy; on the other hand, we have this Bill, which makes no mention of climate change and which, through overly broad drafting, risks limiting what public bodies and local government pension schemes are able to take into account when making decisions.

Sadly, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, is not in his place. What we have to be clear about is the unintended consequences of this legislation. We have to be careful about where it could lead, because future Governments may not be so proactive in supporting efforts on climate change. We have to be careful because this legislation, which empowers the Secretary of State, could be incredibly dangerous.

The Local Government Association has raised questions about how this Bill sits with local government’s existing procurement practices and its ability to take environmental, social and governance issues into account. I hope the Minister will agree that combating climate change, including considering a country’s environmental policies, conduct and record, should be a crucial part of decision-making on public procurement.

In her introduction, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, also raised the key issue of the ability of public bodies to be free to avoid investment in fossil fuels. That is a critical area, as extraction of coal and other fossil fuels is often part of government strategy and often controlled by Governments. Could this Bill be interpreted in a way that will stop those sorts of proactive, positive investments that the Government, the Opposition and most people in this country think are right? That is the problem I hope the Minister will be able to address. Fossil fuels are a controversial issue that people have taken very polarised views about; we need to be clear about the consequences of this legislation.

I did not see this group of amendments as being about BDS, but about how we support positive policies on the environment and how the Government intend to ensure that this legislation does not have a chilling effect on the very things they seek public authorities and public bodies to do. I hope the noble Lord will be able to address these specific points.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, may I make a brief intervention? I did not realise that Back Benchers were not continuing to debate, so please forgive me. I have a brief point on this group of amendments and, in particular, the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on his Amendment 15. I have enormous respect and admiration for the noble Lord, but I suggest that this debate, in a way, encapsulates why it is important to consider the Bill very carefully. It also suggests the one- sided and sometimes very difficult debate that surrounds Israel and the BDS question.

For example, the noble Lord described the environmental damage involved in taking away olive trees from Palestinian land as some kind of environmental crime, but historically one of the big criticisms of Israel has been that it uses forestation projects to push Palestinians off their land, so the environmental issue can be argued in different ways for different purposes. Israel has planted over 200 million trees since it was founded, so it does take care of the environment.

On some of the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, was using, one might suggest that one wants to boycott Israel or protect the environment in the opposite way from that which is often argued, and the double standards that have been applied to this debate. I urge my noble friend the Minister carefully to consider the unintended consequences of well-meaning environmental protection. I am, of course, very keen to protect the environment and support the comments made so excellently by my noble friend about the detail of Amendment 15. I thank noble Lords for their indulgence in allowing me to make these points.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that I have been able to reassure the Committee on this matter and I trust that this response addresses the concerns of the Committee. I am also grateful for the many well-informed and passionate contributions. I respectfully ask that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned the Environment Act. During the passage of that Act, the limitations of due diligence measures to only significant targeted illegal deforestation were made clear because, for example, a significant proportion of deforestation due to soy in Brazil or palm oil in Indonesia could take place legally. It would be extremely difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal activity. I do not think the Minister is correct in saying that there would not be a chilling effect. Certainly, the evidence is backed up by a lot of pension experts who have presented evidence to Members of this Committee in their briefings that that is exactly what will happen: public bodies will not be pushing their ESG duties. I hope that he will understand why I have specifically raised that point.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the intervention. I should declare an interest, as set out in the register, in various investments in companies around the world, including in Brazil and Indonesia. I am familiar with the points he raised. I think I answered as well as I can with reference to the Procurement Act and consistency with that, but I would like to write to the noble Lord, if that is helpful, to clarify further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Whether that is relevant is another matter, because the boycotting of the Occupied Territories would also cause a problem under this Bill if Wales and Scotland were allowed to, in effect, opt out of the Bill.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt again, but has the noble Baroness had the opportunity to read the FCDO’s advice on the Occupied Territories?

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

The noble Lord has the advantage of me, because the straight answer to that is no. However, if he points me to it, I shall certainly read it before we consider that again. I believe that trying to boycott the Occupied Territories is the same as trying to boycott Israel. Certainly, the intent is the same, and they are covered by the Foreign Office.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am sorry to labour the point. The noble Baroness keeps using the word “boycott”. We are also talking about decisions on procurement and investment, and there is advice from the FCDO about investing in occupied territories.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

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

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, as I set out in my response to the previous group, the Government chose to apply the ban to public authorities as defined by Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. It is a great advantage that your Lordships, perhaps in contrast to the other place, scrutinise Bills in this way. I cannot accept that it is a sloppy Bill—it is a good Bill—but I think that concerns have been overstated. My noble friend Lady Noakes just explained why, very eloquently. We need clarity. Most bodies know whether or not they are covered.

There is another good reason for using the Human Rights Act definition—obviously, I am happy to look further at its implications, as I have said—which is that the Government intended to apply the Bill to a broad range of bodies when they are exercising public functions. This was to ensure a consistent approach to foreign policy across the UK’s public institutions, to stop public bodies legitimising divisive campaigns, which can undermine community cohesion, and to allow public bodies to focus on their core purpose when engaging in procurement and investment. That was the intention of the manifesto commitment that I mentioned in the previous group.

These amendments seek, rightly, to probe the scope of the Bill’s definition of public authorities, but they also probe the need for the power to make exceptions to the ban. I will try to address each in turn.

I am very glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester has joined the debate. The Church of England would be in the Bill’s scope only to the extent that it exercises public functions. We have heard a little about the interpretation of that in the courts.

Before I address the specific amendments, I remind the Committee that the Bill will not create any new criminal offences. That is a very important point. I also take this opportunity to address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, which was picked up by my noble friend Lord Deben, on orchestras. Orchestras are very unlikely to be regarded as public authorities. Moreover, withdrawing from an event is unlikely to be regarded as a procurement decision for the purposes of our Bill. The definition of a procurement decision does not include contracts where it is the public authority providing the service.

I can also reassure the noble Baroness who raised the issue that defence contracts are also exempt from the Bill. In addition, for contracts in scope, the Bill already contains an exception to the ban for national security considerations. In practice, if a case is reported to an enforcement authority it will look at whether the public authority had regard to any of the exemptions to the Bill—for example, the national security exemptions —during the decision-making process. Evidence of this might include if the public authority shows that it was following guidance from the UK Government, or became aware, for example, that a supplier was engaged in espionage.

Amendments 26 and 23 probe whether charitable organisations would come under the Bill’s scope. Charities would be captured by the ban only if they were performing public functions. It is the Government’s understanding that most charities will not be covered by the Bill. I hope that provides reassurance to noble Lords.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but I was just checking the relevant parts of the Bill relating to enforcement. The Minister said that no new criminal actions arise from the Bill. What we do have is the ability of the Secretary of State to have enforcement powers that include monetary penalties. If people refuse to pay the monetary penalties, what would that result in?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Perhaps I might continue on the points raised in the debate and come back to that point. It is a very reasonable question but I am not going to answer it without advice. However, there are no criminal sanctions in this Bill, which there often are in the Bills we consider in this House.

There may be a small number of cases where charities are delivering public functions; they would therefore be captured in respect of those functions. However, it is important to note that it does not mean that a charity is a public authority just because it is in receipt of public funding.

The Bill will not apply to charities’ private functions. For example, for universities, decisions that are part and parcel of delivering higher education would be public functions so they would be in scope of the ban. If a charity did have public functions in scope of the ban, it would apply only to investment and procurement decisions made within the public functions. That is a point that I need to emphasise. Therefore, the ban would not restrict how such bodies decide, for example, to distribute humanitarian aid, which was the subject of the earlier debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I have already said that I am trying to answer the many questions noble Lords have asked. There have been a great many interventions on me and I have been very patient. I have also made some undertakings to try to clarify some of these points, including childcare, which would cover the schools that my noble friend Lord Deben mentioned.

Perhaps I could turn to Amendment 54, which requires

“the Secretary of State to provide a comprehensive list”,

of the bodies in scope

“before the provisions in Clause 1 can be brought into force”.

The Government are not able to provide a comprehensive list of bodies captured by the Human Rights Act definition. However, I have tried to be clear on the categories of bodies that includes. To repeat, these include: central government agencies and non-departmental public bodies; UK Government Ministers and devolved Ministers; local authorities; administering authorities of local government pension schemes; universities and higher education providers with public functions; publicly funded schools; and some museums and galleries in receipt of significant public funding.

As with any definition, there will be further cases at the margins where it is impossible to generalise without the full facts of a case. That, of course, is where the courts come in. Legislation often uses general definitions—for example, the Human Rights Act from which we have taken the scope or the scope of bodies covered by obligations under public procurement legislation.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 14A. This would remove from the Bill the powers granted to the Secretary of State to amend the schedule to make exceptions to the ban for certain bodies, functions and types of considerations, and to amend or remove regulations made under these powers. I understand concerns about the use of subordinate legislation—the noble Lord knows that—and we are lucky that we have such a good committee to supervise its use. However, these powers are necessary to ensure that the ban can evolve over time and operate as intended, for example in response to emerging global events.

I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, that the FCDO is fully supportive of this legislation, and all regulations made under this Bill would follow the normal procedure of cross-governmental clearance and, of course, be approved by the Foreign Secretary. In the event that in future the ban has unintended consequences for a certain public authority, it is right for the Secretary of State to have the power to exempt that body, or a function of the body, from the ban via statutory instrument—I think today’s debate shows that that is necessary—and this would be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses.

These powers will also allow the Secretary of State to exempt certain types of considerations from the ban. For example, Ministers may decide to exempt a narrow type of consideration to ensure the ban can evolve in line with government policy. The powers future-proof the legislation to ensure the ban can continue to operate effectively and mitigate against any unforeseen circumstances.

Before I close, I should perhaps address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on the environment. The ban applies only to decisions that target a particular country or territory. For example, environmental campaigns, including ones against fossil fuels that are not country specific, are outside the scope of this Bill. I also reassure my noble friend that the power in Clause 3 cannot be used to remove any exception to the ban in the Bill as passed by Parliament. There is a schedule the noble Lord can look at, which includes environmental misconduct, which we are coming on to discuss.

I hope, finally, to address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, with regard to why there is a separate clause in the Bill for local government pension schemes. The administering authorities for local government pension schemes are public authorities under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act. Capturing administering authorities of LGPS in a bespoke provision means that the Pensions Regulator can use its existing powers and procedures to enforce the BDS ban for the administering authorities of LGPS. That avoids the Pensions Regulator setting up a separate enforcement system for the Bill. I am happy to have a discussion with him; we often discuss pensions issues which are of limited interest sometimes to the whole House.

I hope that my response to this group of amendments —importantly, alongside the undertakings I gave in response to my previous group which we expanded a little to bring in telling examples—will help the Committee to understand why we have chosen the Human Rights Act definition and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I look forward to further discussion.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hope I am able to intervene at this point before the noble Baroness sits down—some of these new rules that have been introduced for Committee stage I find incredibly damaging to our ability to properly scrutinise this Bill; I raised that point at the committee.

The noble Baroness said that the FCDO fully supports this legislation. She may recall that, at the previous Committee day, I specifically raised this question because I wanted to inform the Committee of the precise nature of the FCDO’s advice following United Nations resolutions regarding the Occupied Territories, which are specifically mentioned in this Bill. Perhaps she can take this opportunity to tell us how that advice could potentially impact the sort of investment and procurement decisions that organisations might make. There is advice issued by the FCDO in relation to the Occupied Territories.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

We are going to be discussing the Occupied Territories in a group two or three later in this Bill and I do not have an answer to the noble Lord on this point today, except to reiterate that this Bill has been collectively agreed. I was particularly talking about the arrangements for regulations which, in turn, had been collectively agreed. I explained the system that when you have a new statutory instrument, there is a write-round which involves all relevant Ministers. In this particular case, that would certainly include the Foreign Secretary.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 20th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I spoke on Second Reading, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Deben for taking the trouble to read my speech. I wait with anticipation to find out the, no doubt very few, points on which we disagree. That will perhaps be for another day, but I look forward to it.

On these amendments I can be brief, because the central point has already been made: that the proposed amendments, especially those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, would add complexity and increase the likelihood of litigation; I declare the obvious interest in that respect. The amendments would therefore make the Bill not more precise but less.

I say that for three reasons. First, introducing words such as “primary or sole” is an invitation to litigation. My second short point—forgive the legal geekiness, but we are in Committee—is that a quick search of legislation.gov.uk indicates that that phrase does not appear anywhere else in legislation. “Sole or primary” does, so in case we go forward with this, I would invite the noble Lord to flip it round, so that we put the more general word “sole” first, followed by the word “primary”. That is not my main point, but as we are in Committee, which is the place for geeky legal points, I may have just made one.

Another amendment introduces the word “material”. That is a really problematic word in law, as are words such as “significant”, because we always have the debate about what the opposite of “material” is. Is it immaterial—that is, de minimis? In that case, that is not really, as I understand it, the force of the amendment. “Material” here really means “of substance”, and it is, I suggest, not a good word to use if one is seeking to get that point across.

However, my main point is that this part of the Bill is drafted clearly and that whether we add “primary or sole” or “material”, that would add complexity and invite more litigation.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I was going to intervene on the noble Lord, but he finished his speech before I could. Maybe we will have an opportunity when the Minister responds to the debate, because the idea that the words “moral” and “political” are not vague stuns me. Who is to define “moral”? That is very difficult.

This is one of the rare occasions in the House when I can honestly agree with practically all the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I also agree with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I want to stress that with the amendments, especially those to Clause 1, it is necessary to probe what the words mean, and get a better understanding of them. Even if I do not personally feel committed to the amendments, it is important to use this stage to elicit from the Minister a better understanding of the intent of Clause 1.

I do not want to repeat what the noble Baroness said, but this is not about how we address BDS strategies. The impact of the clause is far wider and encompasses a whole host of things that the Government may not have really intended. Who knows? Clause 1 does not define “political” or “moral”. It is extremely wide-ranging and could cover any decision or consideration that suggests a negative view of an existing, previous or potential policy action or inaction, or other behaviour associated with a Government or any public authority in another country.

As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, said, the reasonable observer of the decision-making process test sets an extremely low bar for considering whether a decision was influenced by political or moral disapproval. It does not distinguish between minor or significant influence, and it does not clearly define a reasonable observer. I hope we can use the amendments in this group to probe substantially on these issues.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that the consideration of financial, reputational, legal, environmental, social, governance and other risks in procurement and investment decisions are often complex and overlapping, and some considerations may be confidential. How are we going to sort all those things out if the Bill becomes law?

The legislation does not require the reasonable person to be someone who is familiar with the subject matter and decision-making processes. Clause 1(4) and 1(6) do not define a public authority in a foreign territory, so it could include state-run companies in some countries. This could result in additional uncertainty where the conduct of a public authority differs from the official policy of a foreign state, and that is a threat to actions in support of persecuted people across the world.

The sweeping approach to Clause 1 will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on public bodies being able to make ethical procurement and investment decisions and take actions that support upholding international law, democracy and human rights. I know I have an amendment later on, so I will not go into too much detail now.

As I mentioned at Second Reading, the Bill is incoherent and it waters down the Procurement Act 2023. That Act sets key objectives covered by procurement, including supporting public benefit, in Clause 12(1)(b), and acting and being seen to act with integrity, in Clause 12(1)(d). The Act also gave a mandate to commissioning authorities to award contracts based on the “most advantageous tender” submitted. That change of words moves away from the previous priority of the “most economically advantageous tender” under which the previous procurement regime existed. What was the intent of that change in language? The intent was to enable contracting authorities to give more weight to award criteria such as decent work and wider social values. Again, we are coming to other amendments, particularly about the environment.

This wide definition, which is covered in Clause 1, is the fundamental problem with the Bill. The Explanatory Notes state:

“Clause 1 prohibits relevant public authorities from having regard to a territorial consideration in a way that indicates moral or political disapproval of a country or territory’s foreign state conduct, when making decisions … This clause is designed to catch both open participation in boycotts”,


which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, talked about,

“or divestment campaigns, and more subtle ways of singling out countries or territories that could produce similar results”.

As I say, this sweeping approach will have a chilling effect and will impact on public authorities in upholding international law.

A point I want to focus on is that the UK Government have committed to implementing international standards, including the UN guiding principles on business and human rights—the UNGPs—as well as the commitment made in terms of the environment in the Paris agreement. Carrying out effective due diligence is central to public bodies, as state institutions, being able to fulfil their human rights obligations, implement UNGPs and make ethical procurement and investment decisions. However, because the terminology, such as “political and moral disapproval”, is undefined, this will create problems for public authorities when carrying out their due diligence. That is what will be needed in the due diligence process to avoid falling foul of this legislation, when clarity is so lacking.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments and for their contributions to the debate. I look forward to scrutinising the Bill and these proposed changes in detail during the four Committee days that we have set aside—although this one has been a little truncated. I remain open to listening to noble Lords’ views from all sides, and I hope we can use these sessions to put forward the best possible version of this legislation.

Clarity on all sides is important, and I look forward to further meetings with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, as the Bill progresses. He knows I enjoy meetings with him on the Bills that we have done together. Probing amendments are also important, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, has just said. We were of course both involved with the Procurement Act and I look forward to discussing how the two pieces of legislation interact and how human rights considerations are respected—as they are.

I hope that, in responding to these six amendments, I can assure the House that Clause 1 as currently drafted is the most proportionate and clear way of fulfilling the manifesto commitment of banning public bodies from imposing their own boycott and divestment campaigns.

Clause 1 sets out three tests that must be met to trigger the ban. First, the ban is narrow. It applies only to procurement or investment decisions. Secondly, the public body must have considered a specific territory or country as part of making its decision. Thirdly, that consideration must reflect political or moral disapproval of the conduct of a foreign state.

I turn first, if I may, to Amendments 3, 4 and 5, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. I am grateful for his general support. However, together, his amendments would alter the scope of the clause. Amendments 3 and 5 would prohibit public authorities from being influenced in any way by foreign state conduct. This would widen the prohibition in Clause 1 to include considerations that relate specifically or mainly to a country or territory in a way that is influenced by approval of foreign state conduct. The current drafting prohibits only disapproval of foreign state conduct, and the inclusion of moral and political disapproval is necessary to ensure that the Bill does not capture legitimate territorial considerations that are not about boycotts and divestment campaigns and would take the Bill beyond the manifesto commitment. An example of this would include encouraging trade with important trading partners. These amendments would therefore prohibit a public authority from favouring goods or services from a particular country or territory, based on approval of that country’s conduct. It therefore captures a broader range of decisions that are not relevant to boycotts and divestment campaigns.

Amendment 4, on the other hand, would narrow the prohibition so that it applied only in the case of disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct within its own territory. It would not apply in the case of disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct outside its territory. I agree with the comments made by my noble friend Lady Noakes: this would effectively allow public authorities to boycott countries whose foreign policy they disapproved of. This could leave a significant loophole—a word I think she used—in the ban and undermine the manifesto commitment.

I will now address Clause 1(7) in response to Amendment 6 by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. This amendment would permit public authorities to engage in boycotts and divestment campaigns as long as they were only a result of pressure from a third party, such as a student union, rather than a result of the public authority’s own moral or political disapproval. Subsection (7) is a necessary element of the Bill, as public authorities such as universities and local authorities are frequently pressured to engage in boycotts or divestment campaigns. For example, student unions at Warwick University and Sussex University have passed motions calling for their universities to divest from Israeli companies. If a university conducted a boycott or divestment campaign because of such pressure, rather than because of its own view of a foreign state, we would want that campaign to be caught. Subsection (7) extends to any person seeking to persuade the public authority. However, for there to be a breach of the ban, an enforcement authority must be satisfied that there is enough evidence that a third party influenced the public authority.

I will address the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, on decision-making, if she would agree, on group 2 because we are going to be discussing the meaning of a decision-maker for the purposes of the Bill.

Finally, and most importantly, I turn to Amendments 1 and 2, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill. Amendment 1 would narrow the scope of the prohibition in Clause 1 so that it prohibited public authorities from taking account of territorial considerations only where moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct is the “primary or sole” factor in the decision. My noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley asked a question which made this point, while my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar was concerned that it would increase uncertainty and lead to legal disputes.

Similarly, Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, would narrow the prohibition to decisions “materially” influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct. Like my noble friend Lord Wolfson, I do not agree with weakening the effect of the Bill in this way. Public authorities buying goods or services, or making investments, should not be influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct to any degree, unless—and this is important—one of the exemptions, such as environmental or labour misconduct, applies.

I reassure the Committee that Clause 1 will not capture fleeting and inconsequential remarks made during the procurement or investment decision-making process. The Bill prohibits only considerations that a reasonable observer of the decision-making process would consider a contributing factor to a decision.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

It is precisely that point I want to better understand, because many decisions are going to be complex. While the Minister mentioned the exclusion of things, there could be a combination of issues which would influence the final decision. Somebody might be able to say, “Actually, that combination has become a moral and political thing”. That is what really concerns me. The Minister is very confident that certain things will not be captured, but I do not see that. I would like her to explain in a little more detail that final point she made.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

We will try to do that. I am also happy to discuss this further, because it is obviously an important point in relation to the Bill and, as we agreed at the beginning, we need to try to find a way that does not create a lot of uncertainty.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, commented on the perceived lack of evidence for the Bill, but boycotts have been attempted by several public authorities in recent years. In 2014, Leicester City Council passed a motion boycotting goods from Israeli settlements, as far as the law allows. Several other local authorities have passed boycotting or condemnatory motions, including Swansea Council, Gwynedd Council—

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but on that point can the Minister tell us what the FCDO’s advice and the United Nations decisions are in relation to the Occupied Territories?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am certainly very happy to come back to that on a later group of amendments.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

But it is material to what the Minister has just said.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I will see if I can come back to it before we finish. I was trying to give the examples that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, had asked for. There was West Dunbartonshire Council and Stirling Council, and in 2021 Lancaster City Council passed a motion in support of the wider BDS movement.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I come back to the first point that the Minister made. It is really important that we are clear about this, because one concern we have mentioned—I am not going to make a Second Reading speech—is the impact that this Bill has on the United Kingdom’s foreign policy. If there is a discussion about goods from and investments in the Occupied Territories, she needs to explain why she has evidenced that and how it is supported by the FCDO’s own advice and the Government’s support for United Nations resolutions on that subject.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I can certainly provide more detail of the boycotts, if that is helpful.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

No, that is not what I am asking. The first example that the Minister gave was in relation to the Occupied Territories. I really think it is important that we understand why she has referenced that.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I was giving a list and I will certainly come back on that question. We have a group relating to the Occupied Territories later on, when we can go into this in more detail. If the noble Lord can give me a bit of slack, I will see if I can get fuller information and come back to that at the end.

I was trying to answer the question on evidence. If I may, I should also like to cite, from September 2023, Islington Council passing a motion in opposition to this Bill, expressing its support for BDS campaigns—which everybody has said that they are very unhappy about—and resolving to:

“Continue to ensure that our own ethical procurement strategy doesn’t include procuring goods and services produced by oppressive regimes”.


I have not covered all the BDS activity in public bodies, but I hope that this demonstrates to the noble Lord that there is a considerable evidence base.

Separately, I note the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, about student unions and the provision of kosher foods in universities. We are going to discuss that point. The noble Lord has tabled some interesting amendments on it in group 3.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the words of my noble friend Lord Pickles about the work done over many years by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, for the Government in an unpaid capacity. That work is well regarded and very much appreciated in the Jewish community and, I am sure, well beyond it too.

Turning to Amendment 9, while I understand its focus and purpose, I am not sure that it is necessary in the Bill. In particular, although this is not my area of law, I wonder whether the thrust of the amendment would not actually be covered by existing provisions under the Equality Act. I do not know whether the Minister or her department has thought of that, but, if this were to go forward, that might be another way of dealing with this issue.

On a narrower point, the amendment is also widely drawn. It would seem to cover, for example, a decision to use one halal supplier or one kosher supplier rather than a different halal or kosher supplier. I think that cannot be within the intention of the amendment, although I think it would be caught by it.

I am conscious of the time, but I will end on a slightly different point. The focus of this amendment is that food is sometimes used to drive a wedge between communities. This might be a strange thing for me to say, but I want to pay tribute to Zarah Sultana MP, with whom I probably agree on absolutely nothing but who, with Charlotte Nichols MP, ran a long-standing campaign in Parliament to have kosher and halal food available here. They found a supplier called 1070, which has both kosher and halal certification to provide that food. As a result, I have had conversations over food with people who I might not otherwise have had those conversations with and I found those discussions extremely helpful. I use this, probably very wrongly, to suggest to the authorities that this kosher and halal food be continued, so that we can not only eat together but discuss and speak together as well.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I too associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, because the noble Lord, Lord Mann, has done incredibly important work in tackling anti-Semitism and ensuring that we remove it from all of our civil life. I pay tribute to him.

I will not delay the House too long, but the important thing with these two amendments is expectations. This is the problem with the Bill. While I want to avoid going back, we have made a plea—my noble friend Lady Chapman made it at Second Reading—that we want to co-operate with the Government to implement their manifesto commitment. I am afraid that this Bill goes well beyond that and brings into question other issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Mann, is absolutely right to put these sorts of amendments down, because they address the concerns of the community. People often think when we are talking about this Bill that we are talking about consumer boycotts and consumer choice. No, we are not. It is about decisions over investment and procurement, but those decisions can involve the sorts of things that the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is talking about—and we heard an example from the noble Lord just now.

How we manage expectations is really important. I suspect that, when we go into other groups, we will hear lots of concerns about issues that go well beyond the scope of the Bill. So I hope the Minister understands why the noble Lord, Lord Mann, has put these amendments in. They are to probe, but also to say that there is a problem, there is an issue and the Bill does not solve it.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mann, for drawing the House’s attention to two important issues with his Amendments 8 and 9. Like my noble friend Lord Pickles, who it is a real pleasure to welcome to our debate, my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, I am really grateful for all the work that the noble Lord, Lord Mann, has done.

My noble friend Lord Pickles and I worked together in my retail days, when he was a leading influence in local government and I worked to have kosher and halal food in many of the Tescos that were spreading across the country. So there were lots of conversations over food. A focus on community concerns is what much of the probing has been about this evening—but that is for another group.

I remain of the view that we need to apply this Bill to universities as we are doing, and I am committed to having a comprehensive debate and discussion on the impact of the Bill on universities at the appropriate moment later in Committee.

As we have heard, the two amendments in this group would add two stipulations to Clause 1. Amendment 8 intends to ensure that the prohibition applies to a decision made by a university to enter into a commercial partnership with another university or research university in a foreign state. The prohibition in the Bill already covers higher education providers in their public functions, including when their procurement and investment decisions form part of a research collaboration. Decisions relating to a commercial partnership are, however, likely to constitute a private function—for example, a decision relating to a research partnership to develop a new product funded by a pharmaceutical company. The ban applies only to public authorities’ public functions, as we have heard, and private decisions are rightly out of scope of the Bill. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, says, but it would be inappropriate to apply the ban to private functions, and it would take the Bill beyond the manifesto commitment.

We have been clear in the Explanatory Notes that Clause 1 is not intended to prevent a higher education provider deciding to terminate a collaboration with a foreign university on the grounds of academic freedom, if they deem it necessary in line with their statutory duties in Part A1 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 or other legislation. The Bill is about ensuring that universities and higher education institutions do not have a corporate view on a particular matter of foreign policy when making their investment and procurement decisions. It is right that the Bill does not stray into decisions that could threaten academic freedom, as helpfully highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, who spoke at Second Reading. I am sympathetic to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is making, and the Government do not support academic boycotts, but this Bill rightly does not interfere with academic freedom or private activity.

I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, about the Jewish community’s support for this Bill. The Jewish community in the UK is widely supportive of the Bill as drafted. Russell Langer, head of policy at the Jewish Leadership Council, provided the following statement in support of the Bill’s restriction on universities’ economic activities:

“Higher education institutions continue to come under pressure to adopt BDS policies ... This legislation will be a valuable tool in assisting our higher education in rejecting this effort”.


The Bill will sit alongside other measures that the Government are taking to protect academic freedom. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 will ensure that freedom of speech is protected and promoted within higher education in England, and it will strengthen existing freedom of speech duties and directly address gaps in the existing law. Without action to counter attempts to discourage or even silence unpopular views, intellectual life on campus for staff and students may be unfairly narrowed or diminished, which is why there was a commitment in the 2019 manifesto to strengthen this.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I will start by making one thing very clear, as my noble friend Lady Chapman did in her opening speech: Labour has consistently opposed the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions campaign against the State of Israel. We do so because we recognise, as many noble Lords have said in the debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, that some people have used the cover of BDS to whip up hate towards Jewish people, to seek to hold Israel to different standards from other countries, to question its right to exist, and to equate the actions of the Israeli Government with Jewish people. That is utterly wrong.

Anti-Semitism is a scourge on our society that all political parties—I am sure we can unite across the House on this—should stand together in opposing and eradicating. I agree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, that greater effort should be put into education and into winning people to the arguments we have heard in the debate. This legislation simply is not supporting that fight against anti-Semitism.

We have consistently put forward an alternative solution to address the very real concerns over BDS. We have tabled amendments, most recently to the Procurement Bill as it was progressing. We sought to ensure that the Bill—the Act, as it now is—would prevent councils from singling out Israel. We said that public bodies should be able to take ethical decisions, but that these must be consistent with their investment and procurement policy, within a framework based on principles that applied equally to all countries, rather than singling out individual nations. That was a principle that was rejected, sadly, by the Government when we put it forward in the Procurement Bill.

As my noble friend Lady Chapman said, we hope that, when we move through the stages of this Bill, we can seek a consensus. What I have heard across this debate is that, whether you support BDS or oppose it, the Bill has significant problems—concerns have been raised across the Chamber. As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, just mentioned, many of those concerns were reported by the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House, particularly the draconian restrictions on free speech. Its report states:

“The protection of free speech is a fundamental right”.


Like the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, it is clear in its view that

“clauses 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) unduly limit freedom of speech by preventing public bodies from stating that they would or even might make a procurement or investment decision in contravention of clause 1 had it been lawful to do so.

That is unbelievable. It is rather ironic that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and I seem to constantly face draft Bills from this Government that have a Clause 4 that we seek to oppose. I never thought that would happen to me, but there we go. As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, the committee made a powerful case that Clause 4 should be removed from the Bill. I am sure that will be an important consideration in Committee.

The Constitution Committee also called for more precise guidance about how Clause 4(1)(b) would be applied in practice. Again, in my experience as a trade union official over many years, and certainly in the Labour movement, I have heard many times the term “speaking in a personal capacity”, and I know what it means. It means, “I don’t want to be held accountable for what I decide. I may be general secretary but, on this occasion, I want to advocate something else”. It is absolutely crazy that there is this sort of ambiguity in proposed legislation. It is dangerous stuff.

The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, asked how the requirements in Clause 4 will be balanced with the duties under Section 1 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. I am not going to repeat those arguments.

Those are the areas that we absolutely need to scrutinise and challenge in Committee. I hope that we have not only significant amendments but probing amendments, because there is so much in this Bill we simply do not understand. Noble Lords have constantly questioned the loose term “public bodies”. What constitutes a public body? Suddenly, the principle in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act about the unique nature of our universities is now thrown out of the window. How many public bodies are we are talking about? The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, told me it could be tens of thousands. The Minister, in a throwaway remark, talked about schools and nursery schools, and any body that receives its full financing from the Government. It is something we need to scrutinise in detail.

The Constitution Committee expressed serious concern about the Bill’s roughshod approach, as it called it, to devolution, with no explicit consultation with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. The committee recommends—again, I hope the Minister will be able to respond to this point tonight—that the Government make a statement during the passage of the Bill on why consultation did not happen. Will she commit to keeping the House informed of any ensuing consultation, irrespective of whether we require legislative consent? The fundamental issue is what we have done in consulting and engaging with the devolved Governments. Clearly, nothing has happened. I hope the Minister will be able to address that properly today.

Despite what the Minister said in her introduction, this is clearly a threat to actions in support of persecuted people across the world. My noble friend Lord Hendy is right: when Governments inhibit human rights, the first institutions they attack and the things they undermine the most—this is certainly what we see in Russia—are civil society and workers’ rights, by banning trade unions, voices, churches and the sorts of institutions that act as a safeguard against the actions of Governments. Civil society is one of the most important parts of our democracy. It seems to me that this Bill will totally undermine that if a public body says that it does not agree with the repression in Xinjiang or with a state that bans trade unions or any of the things that we have signed up to in UN and ILO conventions. I think this is very dangerous.

The most important element, which noble Lords have spoken about, is the chilling effect of Clause 1 on public bodies, which have a duty under the Procurement Act to make ethical investment decisions and take actions that support the upholding of international law, democracy and human rights. The problem is that the Bill is both incoherent with and waters down the Procurement Act 2023. The Procurement Act sets key objectives for covered procurement, including supporting public benefit and

“acting, and being seen to act, with integrity”.

The Act also gives a mandate to commissioning authorities to award contracts based on

“the most advantageous tender submitted”.

That is a change, moving away from the priority under the previous procurement regime of the most economically advantageous tender. Why was that change made? Perhaps the Minister can explain precisely that. We heard in the debate that it was to ensure that contracting authorities gave more weight to award criteria such as decent work and wider social value. This Bill is clearly going to undermine and attack that. This is inconsistency. We should not put up with this sort of thing from a Government in such a short period of time.

I want to conclude on a very important point that has been raised by many noble Lords: in diplomatic terms, the most damaging part of the Bill is that it treats the Occupied Palestinian Territories as though they were in effect the same as the State of Israel. As we have heard—I will not repeat the arguments—this runs counter to a long-established policy of all Governments of this country and to the decisions of the United Nations when we not only supported but drafted the resolutions. It is incredible that we have done this. For the Government to be legislating to breach the UN resolution that they voted for and drafted is difficult to understand.

It is hard to understand how any Foreign Secretary has allowed such a Bill to proceed in its current form. My noble friend Lord Grocott is absolutely right. I supported the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in his statements last week on how we give hope to the Palestinian people about a future in which we can guarantee the security of Israel with a secure Palestinian state. That is fundamental. I hope that we will get a better understanding about who is in control here. Foreign policy should be a matter for the Foreign Secretary and not for the Levelling Up Secretary.

Conversion Therapy Prohibition (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) Bill [HL]

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Friday 9th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a fascinating and well-conducted debate. I have appreciated all the contributions, even those I do not agree with. I particularly want to mention the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Herbert. He and I have worked together on an all-party basis for many years in trying to influence things.

It is important sometimes to reflect on the journey we have been on and the role of legislation in that journey. The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, referred to how it has changed things. I have been around a long time—perhaps too long—and participated in many of these debates and heard concerns about legislation, whether the GRA, the equal age of consent legislation or the civil partnerships legislation. I planned my civil partnership on what I hoped would be the first day of its introduction, but sadly it got delayed by a whole year because of the actions of this House in restricting movement on civil partnerships. However, when I heard the debate on equal marriage, what was a revelation to me was that all the people who had opposed civil partnerships, including the Bishops’ Benches, were suddenly saying, “We support civil partnerships—but we aren’t happy about same-sex marriage.” Do not underestimate the role legislation has in influencing attitudes and changing behaviour; it can be really important.

I must admit that the noble Lord, Lord Moore, sort of made me jump a bit, because Section 28 was clearly legislation in reaction to, as he put it, left-wing councils and something that was not happening, as he admitted. That legislation did not change things in schools in the way that perhaps those who moved it understood. What it did do was unleash homophobic attitudes in a way you could not possibly understand. I know this from experience. Even though homosexuality was legalised in 1967, suddenly I am walking down the street and I get homophobic comments. It unleashed it for many years, but every change we have made since 1997 has had a positive effect on the British public. Now, I can talk about my husband. People respect it. Now if I go to the doctor and talk about my next of kin being my husband, it is understood and respected. Attitudes have changed immensely.

My starting point in this debate is, of course, Theresa May’s declaration in 2018. I think people accept that there should be a ban on all forms of coercive conversion practices. Theresa May described it as being urgently needed, but we have not seen anything from the Government, sadly, six years on from when it was first promised in the excellent LGBT action plan. Of course, that was after commissioning research and promising legislation in 2021. Then, in March 2022, we had a report saying the plans were dropped entirely. It was moving forward, then backward, and at the beginning of this year we had a commitment to a trans-inclusive ban.

I suspect the Minister may join with me in lamenting some of this sorry saga of being positive about change and it then being negative, but I think that it is LGBT+ people who have really paid the price for that, and for this delay, because they have not been kept safe. That is what this debate is about. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to explain the Government’s policy on conversion practices now, because I want to understand why no draft Bill has been introduced and why the Government find it so difficult. Is this really about policy differences or are the problems about personalities? The Government should come forward with their own proposals.

I share many of the concerns that noble Lords have expressed about the Bill. There is another Bill going through this Parliament in the other end from my honourable friend Lloyd Russell-Moyle. That Bill, to ban conversion practices overall, is backed by many Members from the Conservative Party. A number of noble Lords mentioned pre-legislative scrutiny of a future Bill, to which the Government are apparently still committed. When will it get under way? When will we see it? All the questions raised in this debate deserve an answer, and we want to make progress. I hope the Minister is confident that we will be able to conduct meaningful scrutiny before the end of this Parliament and the general election.

I think that we have been too slow on this: 18 months ago, my honourable friend Anneliese Dodds, the shadow Minister for Equalities, asked whether the Government had gathered any evidence about the impact of a well-drafted ban on conversion practices on the provision of legitimate talking therapies. She asked for any evidence or statements from medical bodies suggesting any concerns that a conversion therapy ban would have a chilling effect, or that a trans-inclusive ban would put such treatments at risk. These are legitimate questions, which have been asked in this debate and which the Government have a responsibility to answer. My honourable friend did not get any answers when she asked them, and I suspect that I will not get any today.

Conversion refers to changing, not to exploring people’s real selves, including for young gay men or young lesbian women, who, from transition, have realised that they were always gay. What safeguards or principles does the Minister envisage would be introduced to prevent the acceleration through affirmation of young people into gender services, where they are experiencing conversion therapy or radical surgery? Questions have been raised, and the Government have a responsibility to give us the answers to them, particularly if they gave a very strong commitment.

We on the Labour Benches acknowledge that there are complexities, and we have a different approach. It is our job to protect the public from harm: like the BMA, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and countless other organisations, we believe that conversion practices constitute abuse. We are clear that a Bill to ban these practices must, of course, be carefully and sensitively drafted, so that it does not cover psychological support and treatment, non-directive counselling or the pastoral relationship between teachers and pupils or between religious leaders and worshippers. These are matters that legislators can work through sensibly, and I am confident that we can.

A ban would not cover quiet conversations and friendships. A ban would not cover discussions within families, which are based on the need for love and support. A ban would not—and must not—have an impact on the provision of psychological, medical and supportive services for children and young people. As I said, much more support and psychological counselling is needed, not less, and that is the very clear view from the interim Cass review that noble Lords mentioned.

On Wednesday night, I spoke to my honourable friend Lloyd Russell-Moyle at an event hosted by Mr Speaker on LGBT history. It was a fantastic event with a range of people including trans men and trans women. My honourable friend settled on “predetermined purpose”; that is what he put in his Bill. It says that, much like with false advertising, you cannot set about to change someone as that is not possible in law and to do so would be a fraud.

The words in his Bill are also clear that the intent cannot be entered into during the process of a conversation but must be predetermined. That is what we are talking about here. Lots of other points have been raised, particularly on gender, but when someone says, “You must come for this therapy because we are going to change you from being gay to straight”, it needs to be stopped, because that has a huge impact.

Other Bills have tried to focus on harm, and this is already an offence, as we have heard. However, the ability to prosecute is hard. It requires the victim to retraumatise themselves in a trial and, as we have heard in this debate, harm is often not known for a long time.

Labour believes that any ban must be carefully, tightly and clearly worded, and appropriately implemented and assessed. That should surely be par for the course for any legislation, and it must also apply to a ban on conversion practices. Because of the Russell-Moyle approach, I am confident that it is possible to deliver a ban without ending up in the quagmire in which the Government have found themselves.

We have a duty to ensure that every LGBT+ person can live their lives in dignity and free from abuse, just like anyone else. I sincerely believe, as my noble friend Lady Donaghy said, that the Bill gives us the opportunity of space to look at these issues in detail and put the challenging questions that we have raised. That is why it is important that we give it a Second Reading.

Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I have three quick questions to which I hope the Minister will respond. The dire situation in Gaza must stop now. We need a humanitarian truce to allow aid in and the release of the hostages, so can he update us on his and the Foreign Secretary’s efforts to support the international community? Can he also update us on increased access to Gaza, particularly land routes through Kerem Shalom and Rafah, and air drops and maritime routes? How can we get access quickly? Finally, to pick up my noble friend’s point about UNRWA, we need to ensure that that organisation can continue, so will the Minister set out a clear and fast pathway to returning to funding it? When will we get the report and be able to get aid back into Gaza?