Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill
Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2023.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
I had not thought that there would be any need for a private session, but one Member has something that he wants to raise, so I think we should have a very brief private session. However, I should point out that the time that we take up by sitting in private will eat into the time for the witnesses.
Examination of witnesses
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
I apologise to the witnesses and members of the public who are attending today, for allowing them in before unfortunately having to ask them to withdraw while we sat in private. There was an issue that the Committee wanted briefly to discuss before we went into the formal, public part of the proceedings.
We will first hear evidence from Jonathan Turner, the chief executive of UK Lawyers for Israel, and Steven Barrett, a barrister at Radcliffe Chambers. I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick rigidly to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has already agreed. For this panel we have until midday. Could the two witnesses briefly introduce themselves for the record?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Thank you very much.
Greg Smith (Conservative, Buckingham)
Before we begin, may I say for the sake of transparency—I do not think that this is a fully declarable interest—that Steven Barrett is known to me as a councillor in Buckinghamshire?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
You are clearly a very busy man.
Felicity Buchan (Conservative, Kensington)
Q116 As we know, the Bill does not in any way change the UK’s foreign policy approach to the middle east. Would you agree that the Bill is in line with the Government’s obligations under international law?
Felicity Buchan (Conservative, Kensington)
Steven?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Given the constraints on time, I will bring in other members of the Committee. If there is time at the end, I will bring the Minister back in.
Felicity Buchan (Conservative, Kensington)
I just have a quick segue from that.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
A very quick one, then.
Felicity Buchan (Conservative, Kensington)
Q Today we will be hearing from Richard Hermer KC, who has provided legal advice to the Labour party. Could you quickly give your views on that advice? I turn to Jonathan, since Steven has already addressed that.
Wayne David (Labour, Caerphilly)
On a point of order, Sir George.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
I hope it is a point of order.
Wayne David (Labour, Caerphilly)
I hope so, too. I just want to ask your advice. Is it appropriate for a witness to this Committee to give evidence in the form of attacking another witness who does not have the opportunity to respond to those comments because he is not here? Surely a witness should be giving positive remarks about why something should be done, rather than criticising another witness.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
It is an interesting point, but it is not a point of order for the Chair. It is in the hands of the witnesses themselves to give their evidence in the way that they think most appropriate, and if that involves commenting on evidence that we have already heard, it is certainly acceptable for them to do so. You might not like it—
Wayne David (Labour, Caerphilly)
No, and I don’t think many people will.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
But it is the system. I am going to move swiftly on now. A number of Members have indicated that they want to take part. I call Alex Norris.
Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)
The key test in clause 1 for the action of a decision maker is whether itQ
“would cause a reasonable observer of the decision-making process to conclude that the decision was influenced by political or moral disapproval”.
Are you content with the phrase “reasonable observer”? Do you think it is tight enough? Could it be clearer?
Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)
Q So can we have confidence in it as essentially a term of art that will be easily understood by the courts and is not likely to lead to a series of cases based on whether or not one is reasonable? Is that likely to be tested?
Luke Evans (Conservative, Bosworth)
There has been much discussion with other witnesses about the need for clause 4. I have a question for Jonathan Turner: do you agree that clause 4 is necessary, and do you think it is compatible with article 10 of the European convention on human rights?Q
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Mr Barrett, is there anything you want to add?
Chris Stephens (Scottish National Party, Glasgow South West)
My trade union training tells me that if you have two lawyers in the room and you ask them a question, you get at least three opinions, but I am going to try one question anyway.Q
The Scottish Government oppose the BDS campaign, but also strongly discourage trade with companies active in the Occupied Palestinian Territories—an occupation that was recognised as illegal under international law and by the UK Government. How would you both respond to the concerns people have that the Bill effectively condones what many would regard as illegal occupation?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
We are running rapidly out of time, but there is an opportunity for one very quick question.
Anum Qaisar (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)
You said that you had some concerns about the drafting of the Bill. Can you explain them, please?Q
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
On behalf of the Committee, may I thank the witnesses? I am sure it has been quite a probing experience for you, but even if individuals might not agree with the advice that you have given, I think they respect the fact that it was given in good faith and comes from a base of knowledge that is very helpful.
Examination of Witnesses
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Q We will now hear evidence from Yasmine Ahmed, the UK director of Human Rights Watch, David Timms, the head of political affairs at Friends of the Earth, and Peter Frankental, programme director for economic affairs at Amnesty International UK. We have until 12.30 pm to conclude the session. For the record, could the three witnesses briefly introduce themselves?
Chris Stephens (Scottish National Party, Glasgow South West)
Q Amnesty International says that the Bill will make it impossible for public bodies to use their procurement and investment policies to incentivise ethical business conduct that is human rights compliant. Dave and Yasmine, do you agree with that statement? Peter, can you expand on that?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
To the other two witnesses, it might be helpful in terms of our time constraint if you could initially confirm whether you are happy with the evidence already given, and if not, please say so. Secondly, could you raise any additional points that you do not think have come out in the first response? I hope that is clear.
Felicity Buchan (Conservative, Kensington)
Q I have two questions, so perhaps you can be brief on the first one. The first is quite simple: are you supportive of the BDS movement?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Minister, do you have a quick follow-up?
Felicity Buchan (Conservative, Kensington)
Q You have raised concerns that the Bill may prevent ethical procurement decisions, but would you not agree that there is nothing in the Bill that prevents, for instance, the divestment of fossil fuels, provided that it is not country-specific, and that there are numerous exceptions in the Bill such as on labour market misconduct and environmental misconduct? We are very much alive and dealing with ethical procurement decisions here.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
It is an agree/disagree question.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
To use the same approach I advocated for the previous question, if the two other witnesses want to concur with or dissent from the response that Mr Timms gave, could they say so and perhaps raise any additional points that they think would be helpful to the Committee?
Alex Norris (Labour/Co-operative, Nottingham North)
Q To build on that point, we have heard very strongly from panellists that you do not believe that the exceptions in the schedule to the Bill will protect environmental concerns. We have previously heard from the Government that they believe that it does. Assuming that that is their intent, how would you bridge the gap between what is on the face of the Bill and what is said to be the intention of that exception? Are you saying that it is irredeemable, which I think was the point that you made, Yasmine?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Does anyone have anything to add to that? No? Okay. I will come next to Dr Luke Evans.
Luke Evans (Conservative, Bosworth)
Q All of you were very clear to set out your position on BDS for the individual—namely, that you think it is right. I think everyone here would agree that it is an individual choice. The Bill is about public bodies and their position on BDS. Does your organisation support the idea that public bodies should be able to choose to carry out BDS—yes or no? I will just go down the panel for answers.
Luke Evans (Conservative, Bosworth)
Q Very quickly, to come back on that point, do you think that foreign policy is the remit of local authorities or national Government?
Luke Evans (Conservative, Bosworth)
It is an answer to a separate question.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Q I am sorry, but you have had two questions. Very briefly, because we are running very short of time, I wonder if the other two witnesses want to add any brief point to that.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Thank you. Two more people have indicated that they want to ask questions. In order to save time, I will take the two questions and then perhaps the witnesses can determine between themselves who will answer them.
Anum Qaisar (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)
Q Thank you for joining us today. What impact will the Bill have on the UK’s relationship with those in the occupied territories, and with Palestinians across all four nations here who wish to exercise freedom of expression so that the actions of the Israeli Government can be held to account?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
I will bring in Brendan Clarke-Smith now for his question, and then you can share the answers between you.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Conservative, Bassetlaw)
Thank you for your input today. You mentioned that people may be subject to equalities claims with the way the law is at the moment. Do you not feel that having a clear policy on this, both nationally and in terms of foreign policy, can protect local authorities if they diverge from it? That is why this Bill makes the picture a lot clearer for local authorities and avoids that situation where they may put themselves under threat and in breach of equalities laws.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
I do not know who wants to take on the two questions. I will leave it to you.
Anum Qaisar (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)
It was to ask what impact the Bill will have on the UK’s relationship with those in the occupied territories and with Palestinians here, across all four nations, who wish to exercise their freedom of expression so that the actions of the Israeli Government can be held to account.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Mr Frankental, will you tackle that one?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Thank you very much. I am afraid we have reached the end of this panel. I thank the three witnesses for the open and frank way in which they have addressed the questions raised by Committee members. We are grateful to them for being here today.
Examination of witness
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Q We will now hear oral evidence from Richard Hermer KC from Matrix Chambers. We have until 12.45 pm for this session. Could the witness introduce himself for the record please?
Felicity Buchan (Conservative, Kensington)
Q In your advice, you argue that the Bill places unprecedented restrictions on public authorities, but would you not agree that there are already substantial restrictions on public authorities, for example, to ensure good value for money or to comply with the UK’s obligations under the Government procurement agreement?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
I am not going to bring the Minister back in. We have only 15 minutes for this session.
Chris Stephens (Scottish National Party, Glasgow South West)
Q In the advice you gave the Labour party, you said the Bill
“effectively equates the OPT with Israel itself and is very difficult to reconcile”
with Britain’s support for a two-state solution. Will you expand on those comments?
Wayne David (Labour, Caerphilly)
Q Following on from that very point, your two papers make the point very strongly that the Bill contradicts, or at least strongly questions, the British commitment to international law. Could you expand slightly on that because, as we all know, the British Government are firmly committed to international law? Are you suggesting that this questions at least the Government’s commitment to international law?
Luke Evans (Conservative, Bosworth)
We heard from a witness in the session the other day about comparisons. His position was that the Bill is relatively somewhere in the middle compared with somewhere like France or some of the states in the US. Given your experience, what is your thought on how this fits into the international comparisons?Q
Anum Qaisar (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)
Thank you for joining us today. Clause 4 has been referred to as a gagging clause by some. Why can it be seen as so problematic?Q
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Thank you. This will be the last question.
Nicola Richards (Conservative, West Bromwich East)
Given that the BDS movementQ targets almost exclusively Israel, do you think it is appropriate that we require primary legislation for Israel?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Thank you. We have a few minutes left if anybody has a further question.
Wayne David (Labour, Caerphilly)
Q Apart from the objections you have clearly set out in writing and orally, you make a number of comments about the poor drafting of the Bill. Could you give us a few examples of poor drafting that will lead to all sorts of unintended consequences and complications?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Thank you for the brevity of your responses, which enabled us to get a lot more questions in than I had anticipated in such a short session. It has been very helpful. Thank you very much.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Q Finally, we will hear oral evidence from Melanie Phillips, a columnist for The Times. For this session we have until 1 pm. For the purposes of the record, could the witness briefly introduce herself?
Felicity Buchan (Conservative, Kensington)
Q The BDS movement almost exclusively targets Israel. Can you talk about the effect of the BDS movement on the Jewish community and on community cohesion?
Felicity Buchan (Conservative, Kensington)
Q I have one quick follow-up question. There has been a lot of talk about clause 4, which prohibits statements of intent to boycott. Would you agree that we need clause 4, because a statement of intent sows community division without achieving anything?
Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)
I understood the Bill to be largely about the Conservative party meeting its manifesto promise to address BDS—in fact, the Prime Minister restated that recently. If that is the main purpose of the Bill—and I have to say I am in favour of that—do you think we need the exemption that means that Israel and the Palestinian territories are the only places that the Secretary of State cannot regulate for? Does it add anything extra to the BillQ ?
Wayne David (Labour, Caerphilly)
Q Could I say that I have regularly, over many, many years, read your excellent articles in The Times and indeed elsewhere. I understand that you feel very strongly about this issue, and I personally have gone on record many times as being implacably opposed to the BDS movement. However, one worry I have is that much of the mechanism in the Bill requires exemptions, and the Government have indicated that there will be some exemptions, but they have not mentioned China, and I do not think they will mention China. Yet there is tremendous concern among the Uyghurs, for example, as we have heard in this Committee, about the possible curtailment of action at a community level against China. Is that a concern you share?
Nicola Richards (Conservative, West Bromwich East)
Q We have heard evidence that some believe the Bill could make division worse, but many others have argued that that would not be the case. Part of what the BDS movement calls for is for people to stop Palestinian organisations working with Israeli organisations. Do you think that is evidence, and is there any more evidence, that the Bill would not make community tensions worse and seeks to make them better?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
If anybody has a further question, there is time to ask it.
Bob Blackman (Conservative, Harrow East)
We have had a succession of witnesses over our various evidence sessions. Some have suggested strengthening elements to the Bill. I do not know whether you have been following the evidence, but do you have any suggestions as to how the Bill could be strengthened, rather than weakened, as some people have suggested?Q
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Before I ask you to respond, I will bring in Steve McCabe and, with your forbearance, ask you to perhaps answer both questions together.
Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)
I think my question was the same. You said that the Bill would benefit from amendment. I wondered what you had in mind.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Thank you. I would like to thank the witness for her characteristically forthright responses, which have been very helpful to the Committee. I would also say that, in my experience—I am sure you share it—it is as well to take compliments wherever you can get them. With that, thank you very much for your attendance. We are very grateful.