I recently spoke in Canterbury against the Conservative City Council’s decision to consider giving its waste handling contract to a company whose Israeli affiliate are alleged to be linked to human rights abuses in Palestine.
The Council is refusing to consider the ethical issues on the basis of an interpretation of European law that prohibits taking such matters into account. The correct interpretation of the law is disputed but members of the public formed the distinct impression that the Conservative Council would place no weight on the matters even if the law permitted them do.
The argument for not giving a public contract to a company that profits from abuse of human rights, even on the far side of the world, is that it strongly encourages them to behave better. Most people in Britain do not want services and goods that are tainted by the suffering of others.
Even if the correct interpretation of the law is that ethical matters cannot be considered, then that is the beginning rather than an end of political questions. The law should be changed to allow the abuse of human rights by a company (or its affiliates) to be considered before public contracts are given to them.
We should campaign, at local, Westminster and European levels, for the law to allow refusal on ethical grounds.
The full text of my brief speech at the Canterbury meeting is here.
* Antony Hook was a Liberal Democrat MEP for South East England (2019) and has practised as a barrister since 2003. He is currently Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group on Kent County Council.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Richard Foord sworn in as a new MP
To keep society going we need to share the wealth of the nation more fairly
My tweets
Dogs beat politicians in the Dunston popularity stakes
More embarrassment for the royal family
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
The big train ride, day 8 - in which some valuable lessons are learned...
Thursday was a good night for the Lib Dems in Shropshire and beyond
David Raw
Mick Taylor
Brad Barrows
Joseph Bourke
Chris Moore
13 Comments
To do this ethically, there would need to be democratically agreed criteria in place to define what “linked to” means, and to determine what verification standards are needed to justify barring a company from contracts.
For example, paragraph 1, says that a company is alleged to have an affiliate who does bad things.. Is “alleged” sufficient proof? Is “affiliated to” sufficient connection?
‘alleged to be linked’ is enough to damn, is it?
So, so, obviously wrong.
It is enough for the issue to be considered. Of course a reasonable public body would only act if there is a good standard of evidence to support the allegation and would hear representations from both sides.
Richard, on meaning of affiliate, my preliminary view would be, for example, that sharing a common parent company would be a close enough relationship. If the profits go to the same place, moeal and legal responsibility should be shared too.
Ok, so I’m a competitor in the bidding process, and I drop a friendly hint to a local newspaper that my rival is affiliated to a company in Taiwan that is affilliated to a company in Brazil that employs slave labour in Timbuktoo. Result, the council considers the newspaper report of allegations very seriously, doesn’t know where this story is going, definitely deoesn’t want to end up being pilloried, and so awards me the contract.
Is that what LibDems think of as “fair”?
Richard, no reasonable council would consider the newspaper report you describe as a good standard of evidence.
Reasonable councils? Hmm. Never heard of any unreasonableones?
If they don’t take my fabricated story seriously, I’ll fabricate some more stories and hound them out of office. If they do take it seriously, my rival will sue them for corruption.
That is why the standards of evidence need to be defined in law, rather than made up on the spot by “reasonable” councillors.
If you fabricate an allegation to cause loss to another you will be guily of an offence under Fraud Act 2006.
Councils make decisions based on evidence all the time. It is already possible under the current legislation to refuse to award a contract based on “unprofessional” conduct. I simply call for extending that to other types of misbehaviour. The standard of proof in such a matter is well tested and understood.
I am very glad that you are not proposing anything more drastic. I feel reassured that I can continue with my planned fraudulent activity without taking special extra precautions. Thanks!
Proof not allegation or it should not be considered.
The problem is that at the moment even when the evidence is overwhelming that a company is complicit in human rights abuses, the law does not councillors to refuse to award a contract because of it.
A possible solution is provided in the first comment above!
The procedural aspects are interesting.
But first we must esablish the principle.
Namely, that councils should be able to refuse a contract to a bidder complicit in human rights abuses.
We must not under-estimate the difficulty of that fight. Too many in power will say, “we don’t care about people far away, we just want the cheapest option.”
I wonder if that might actually be a rather bad principle? It seems to suggest that the council will have the right, if it so wishes, to ignore a bidder’s complicity in human rights abuses. Maybe the principle should have mandatory effect?
But to establish such a principle will certainly require developing definitions of what “complicit” means, and what “human rights abuses” are. Some abuses are worse than others – ar minor abuses ok? Different people have different views on what human rights are – do they include employment rights? What about cultural or simply economic differences? Would you exclude a company whose foreign affiliate employs children who are younger than can be legally employed in the UK, but who are vital breadwinners in a 3rd world nation?
What too of time limitations? Is the present company to be penalized by an affiliate whose behavuour of five years ago you disapprove of? ten years? How will a company that used to behave badly but now doesn’t get forgiven?
I agree that the general idea is worthwhile – and the Bribery Act kind of gives the lead – but in implementation will require a whole host of issues need to be addressed. Doing it informally, as it were, may well lead to unwanted unintended consequences, IMHO.