My position on Palestine and ethical investment in Oxfordshire
The situation in Palestine is horrifying: the destruction, loss of life, and human suffering in Gaza is unbearable. It demands a moral, humanitarian and political response from all of us. We cannot and must not look away. What is unfolding demands not only our attention, but our ethical responsibility.
I will work to ensure that Oxfordshire County Council does not contribute to systems that allow injustices like this to continue. The principle that councils must act responsibly with public money - not just financially, but morally - is one I take extremely seriously.
Where I stand - unequivocally
I absolutely support the principle that Oxfordshire County Council should not invest in, nor do business with companies that are complicit in war crimes, apartheid, illegal occupation, or other serious human rights violations.
That means advocating for:
Public spending that is guided by moral principles and used in ways that protect human dignity, uphold international law, and actively avoid complicity in injustice;
The right to peaceful protest, including in defence of Palestinian rights;
Local leadership that reflects moral courage and practical responsibility;
Urgent humanitarian support and a permanent end to the suffering in Gaza.
Public money should be used with care and conscience. This isn’t just something I believe in for the council - it’s a value I hold across all areas of my life, including in how I run my own business, Hoyle’s. For instance, Amazon is listed among the companies identified in the Oxfordshire Divest for Palestine campaign materials: we have never - and will never - sell our products on Amazon, nor will we partner with them. Ethical practice shouldn’t just be something we ask of others. It’s something we have to live by, consistently.
Doing things better - a proactive vision
I believe we need a dedicated forum to work through these complex but critical issues. I would support the creation of a working group or committee at Oxfordshire County Council, tasked specifically with reviewing the council’s investment and procurement policies in the context of human rights and international law. This group should include councillors, independent experts, representatives from pension holders, community stakeholders and students, whose voices on this issue have been powerful and clear.
This isn’t just about one campaign or one conflict. It’s about setting a gold standard for how local government acts ethically and transparently - now and in the future. And it speaks directly to what I believe more broadly: that good governance, strong process, and joined-up policy are how we build a council worthy of people’s trust. As devolution advances - handing more legislative, financial, and strategic responsibility to local councils - and local authorities increasingly become the front line for major public policy, we must lead not just by reacting to crises, but by putting in place structures that reflect the best of who we are and what we stand for. That means applying our values consistently - across every department, decision, and investment - and ensuring that doing the right thing - ethically, transparently, and with long-term impact in mind - is built into our systems at every level. It’s not just about managing risk; it’s about choosing responsibility, fairness, and moral leadership, every single time.
If elected, I will work to ensure that Oxfordshire County Council:
Reviews and strengthens its Responsible Investment and Ethical Procurement policies, with clear, public criteria for identifying complicity in human rights abuses;
Improves transparency on its pension investments;
Involves residents, campaigners and experts in shaping future investment frameworks;
Advocates for reallocating funds into sustainable, human rights–aligned alternatives where appropriate;
Ensures our use of public funds - from suppliers to pensions - reflects the values of long-term responsibility, peace and dignity.
When councils lead with courage and consistency, we help build a society where people come before profit. We shouldn’t stop at divesting from harm. As a council, we should be actively investing in good. That could include:
Encouraging B Corp standards for local businesses and suppliers, and ensuring that when companies apply for council contracts or tenders, those who meet B Corp criteria - or comparable frameworks for responsible business practices - are prioritised in procurement decisions;
Aligning with campaigns like ShareAction to embed responsible investment principles into the council’s financial decision-making - including governance, environmental stewardship, and human rights safeguards - and ensuring these principles inform not just pension oversight, but procurement and other areas of financial policy;
Exploring ways to direct council investment into local, ethical funds - such as those supporting community energy, affordable housing or social enterprise - that align with both our financial responsibilities and our social values;
Conducting regular public audits of suppliers and fund managers;
And providing guidance to help local businesses meet ethical procurement standards - including clear criteria, access to training, and advice - so that smaller firms aren’t excluded from opportunities simply because they lack the resources of larger businesses. Ethical procurement should be inclusive and transparent - and it must be achievable for the kinds of businesses we want to see thrive in Oxfordshire.
This aligns with national initiatives too, like the Better Business Act. The Act is directly relevant to the issues raised in this campaign. One of the barriers to ethical investment and procurement is the way UK company law is currently structured: it encourages directors to prioritise short-term shareholder profits, even when doing so may undermine community, environmental or human rights outcomes. The Better Business Act proposes amending Section 172 of the Companies Act so that company directors are required - not just permitted - to consider the interests of workers, communities and the environment alongside those of shareholders. This would give businesses the legal clarity and confidence they need to act ethically and long-term, and it would significantly strengthen the landscape in which responsible investment decisions are made.
I’ve signed the Act and support its goals wholeheartedly. Local governments should not only back it publicly but also embed its principles in procurement frameworks and supplier expectations. We should encourage local businesses to join the coalition and lead by example ourselves.
I also back the Make My Money Matter campaign. We need to lead the way on greener, fairer pensions - not just for council employees, but by encouraging small businesses across Oxfordshire to adopt more ethical pension schemes as part of their contribution to a future-fit, responsible local economy.
Where detail matters
I also believe we must acknowledge the complexity of divestment proposals and consider their real-world implications carefully and constructively. That certainly doesn’t mean saying no to divestment - it means making sure that, if we do it, we do it properly and fairly.
Take, for instance, the current list of "complicit" companies . I agree we shouldn’t invest in businesses profiting from violations of international law. But we need to be clear:
How often are these businesses' practices reviewed? Is their inclusion in the list based on previous behaviour or current intentions?
Are these companies still involved in these actions?
Are they directly responsible or have their products or services been repurposed after purchase?
Have they been contacted and given a chance to respond or change course? I can't find any companies' responses provided - is this because they haven't been contacted for comment or because they have declined to comment?
Amazon is a good example of where we need a more joined-up approach. I think Amazon's record is appalling - not just internationally, but here in the UK. If we're serious about boycotting them on ethical grounds, it shouldn't just apply to pension funds - it needs to extend across the board. Councils shouldn’t use Amazon for procurement, contract with them, or continue to benefit from their services if their practices fundamentally contradict the values we claim to uphold. The council can't claim to support small, independent businesses while funneling money to a company that actively undermines them. If we are calling for divestment from Amazon, that principle should apply across all operations and procurement.
This isn’t about saying no to action. It’s about getting it right.
It’s also about asking what strategy really works. When you're invested in a company, you often have a voice - a seat at the table - and that can be used to push for change. There are real-world examples of this working. Shareholder activism has led to companies reforming their climate policies, pulling out of high-risk sectors, or strengthening their human rights due diligence. In 2021, shareholder activists at Engine No.1 secured board seats at ExxonMobil to push for stronger climate action. ShareAction and others have led coordinated investor pressure on HSBC and Barclays, resulting in new climate finance commitments and policies to phase out coal funding. Investors have also influenced Unilever to adopt a company-wide Human Rights Due Diligence framework, and pushed Nestlé to strengthen supply chain protections against deforestation. I'm not saying that we should necessarily use this principle as a blanket excuse for staying invested in every company on the list - far from it. But examples like these show that shareholder action can achieve meaningful change, and that there may be cases where engagement is more effective than immediate divestment. That’s why I believe we should be considering each company on a case-by-case basis - guided by evidence, values, and a clear understanding of what we’re trying to achieve.
We have to ask: if we divest completely, what happens next? Do we lose our leverage? Do others, less ethically driven, simply step in? Divestment is powerful. But so is engagement - if it’s strategic, transparent and accountable. I think councils should have the option to do both: to divest where influence is futile or where harm is too severe to ignore, and to engage meaningfully where there is potential for positive change.
At a minimum, we must ensure that before making decisions of this weight, companies are contacted, held to account, and given the opportunity to respond. Everyone deserves a right to reply, especially when the consequences could affect lives and livelihoods.
Further reflections on arms and ceasefire
I also think it’s important we ask ourselves: what is our long-term intention with divestment?
I support an immediate ceasefire and I condemn all war crimes and violations of international law. But I also believe that all sovereign nations have the right to defend themselves. That includes Israel - when doing so stays firmly within the boundaries of international humanitarian law. It should go without saying that rights of defence must never become cover for abuses.
So I wonder: if we impose a permanent arms embargo, what happens if circumstances change? Would we reconsider our position? At what point? Would we rearm Israel if they stopped committing abuses? When? Or are we calling for a permanent isolation of Israel, regardless of future behaviour? These questions matter.
We need to be clear about the purpose and scope of our demands. We must always act to protect life and uphold justice - but we must also be precise about when sanctions begin and end, and what behaviours we want to change.
In conclusion
I respect the mission behind the Oxfordshire Divest for Palestine campaign and share its underlying values. For me, ethical leadership is not just about bold declarations, it's about acting with both moral clarity and practical understanding. It means taking principled positions and ensuring those positions are rooted in evidence, proportionality and a real understanding of impact.
This statement sets out my honest, considered position. It reflects my commitment to principled, values-led leadership - grounded in evidence, integrity, and a deep belief in public service. I hope it offers a clear sense of where I stand on these specific issues - and reflects the approach I take to public responsibility more broadly.