The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that this is public money. He will be aware that the Supreme Court, in making a judgment on the previous guidance, specifically said that it is not public money when it is employee or employer contributions; it comes from the rightful employment of the employees themselves. Why does he think that his new clause is different from that? As he has gone on to the specifics, while I am not talking about BDS here, does he think there is a possibility that decisions on investments, say, in illegal settlements, which the Government advise against on economic grounds, could also be caught by his new clause?
Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Andy Slaughter
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 22 February 2022.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [Lords].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
709 c212 Session
2021-22Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-07-19 15:34:54 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2022-02-22/22022241000072
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2022-02-22/22022241000072
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2022-02-22/22022241000072