My Lords, in moving Amendment 31, I will also speak to Amendment 32. Together, they relate to UKTI and UKEF.
The UK is subject to international human rights obligations under customary international law and as a result of the international legal instruments we have signed and ratified. Human rights obligations generally apply only within a state’s territory and jurisdiction. Accordingly, there is no general requirement for states to regulate the extraterritorial activities of business enterprises domiciled in their jurisdiction, although there are limited exceptions to this, for instance under
treaty regimes. The UK may also choose as a matter of policy in certain instances to regulate the overseas conduct of British businesses.
The UK has specific laws protecting human rights and governing business activities. As with all UK law, these are set out in legislation and are sometimes protected by common law rules as well which, taken together, ensure certain rights and liberties. Some of these provisions have been in place for many years, will be familiar to business and are well respected by it.
Like all states, we need to continually reassess whether the current mix is right, what gaps there might be and what improvements we can make. The UK has ratified a series of international treaties and agreements—the ILO eight core conventions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, which enshrine human rights and fundamental freedoms and have been given effect through the law of this country.
The Human Rights Act 1998 ensures that individuals in the UK have a remedy for the breach of rights which are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. It applies to all public authorities and other bodies performing public functions, as private companies sometimes do. The relevant legal framework in the UK includes employment regulations—requiring companies not to discriminate against employees on grounds of sex, race, sexual orientation and religious belief—and environmental regulations. Examples of wide-ranging legislation protecting human rights in the business context include the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, and the Data Protection Act, which applies to companies and ensures respect for the privacy of individuals. Legislation has also been passed to plug specific gaps in the protection of workers under the law such as the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, which created an agency to prevent the exploitation of workers in agricultural work et cetera.
The UK has created or endorsed a number of instruments that motivate different aspects of good corporate behaviour and respect for human rights. These include: the UK Bribery Act where, in line with our OECD commitments, UK companies are now liable in the UK for acts of bribery committed anywhere in the world; the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work adopted in 1998 and the eight core ILO conventions ratified by the UK on labour standards; the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, where the UK has established a national contact point; and Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006, which makes clear that, in fulfilling their duty to act in a way which they consider would be most likely to promote the success of the company, directors must have regard, among other matters, to the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment, and the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct.
6.45 pm
In addition, the Government exercise controls on the export of “strategic” goods and technology through the export licensing system. Under this, all export licence applications are rigorously assessed against the
consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. These assessments take full account of possible human rights impacts. A licence will not be granted if the Government judge that there is a clear risk that the proposed export might, for instance, be used for internal repression.
The Government may be aware that a number of NGOs have raised the question of the powers of UKTI and UKEF, and in particular the question of whether it would be sensible to have a tighter definition underpinning UKTI and UKEF to complement other work under the UN guiding principles, which, like the Government, we support. For example, successive UK Governments have recognised the importance of sustainable development and have committed to policies aimed at achieving this goal. In addition and alongside that, the ECGD has said that it will take account of environmental and social agreements on export credits negotiated at the OECD, but it has also admitted—this is the problem—that these agreements have no legal force in the UK. In this, the ECGD differs from a number of other export credit agencies, notably the US Ex-Im, which has adopted binding environmental and social guidelines.
That situation is surely unacceptable, not least because it has led to the ECGD being in conflict with wider government objectives on sustainable development, the most recent that I can quote being international efforts to ban export credit support for coal-fired power stations. For example, in November 2013 the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change announced that,
“the UK will join the United States in agreeing to end support for public financing of new coal-fired power plants overseas”.
He then went on to say that this could not apply to UKEF because UKEF,
“is not presently legally able to discriminate between classes or types of exports”.
We recognise that the coalition Government have taken a number of steps to give effect to the UN guiding principles, and we support these. However, we feel that there is a need to go further. I suggest, as raised in these amendments, that, first, there is now a need to legislate to provide consistent and overarching principles for all government agencies so that they embody human rights concerns across all their work in support of UK companies and businesses and can be held accountable for the human rights impacts on those affected by their operations and decisions. Secondly, there is a need for legislation to ensure that all UK government procurement rules require that human rights-related matters are considered when the Government purchase goods, works and services. Thirdly, under the OECD 2012 common approaches, legislation is required for UKTI and UKEF to take into account potential adverse project-related human rights impacts, as well as environmental and social impacts, when considering funding and support for exporting companies. Fourthly and lastly, there is a need to legislate to ensure that the UK national contact point has a duty to promote the OECD guidelines and all the necessary resources and powers to fulfil its role effectively, including the prosecution of companies found to be in breach of the guidelines. I beg to move.