Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill Third
Reading King’s consent signified. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel
Evans) I must inform the House that the reasoned amendment in the
name of Keir Starmer has been selected. 5.45pm The Secretary of
State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove) I
beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. I am
grateful for the opportunity to move the Third Reading of this
Bill....Request free trial
Economic Activity of
Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill
Third Reading
King’s consent signified.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I must inform the House that the reasoned amendment in the name
of has been selected.
5.45pm
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
()
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am grateful for the opportunity to move the Third Reading of
this Bill. As the House will know, this Bill was introduced
before the King’s Speech, in the last parliamentary Session; it
is a carry-over Bill. I begin by thanking all those who took part
in the consideration of this Bill on Second Reading, in Committee
and on Report.
Inevitably, following on from its introduction, debate around the
Bill has occurred in the dark shadow of the events of 7 October
and the continuing conflict in Israel and Gaza. That is why I
want to stress, as I sought to do on Report, my gratitude for the
thoughtful way in which every Member of this House has
contributed to debate on this Bill. While there is, I know, a
difference of opinion about the appropriateness of the measures
we are bringing forward, everyone in this House is committed to
ensuring that we act against antisemitism, everyone in this House
is committed to ensuring that we can see a peaceful solution to
the conflict in the middle east, and everyone in this House is
committed to a two-state solution as the means by which we can
bring peace to that troubled region.
The Bill upholds a principle that was originally outlined in our
2019 general election manifesto. During the course of
consideration of the Bill we have heard from a number of
organisations, both in Committee and in broader public debate
about the Bill, all affirming its timeliness and importance in
dealing with the continuing and growing threat of antisemitism,
and upholding the importance of making sure that the UK
Government speak with one voice, in a united way, on behalf of
all of us, on foreign policy, as a reserved matter for the
Government.
In that context, it is important to deal with one or two entirely
understandable and legitimate concerns that have been raised
about the interplay between the Bill itself and UK Government
foreign policy. I know some particular concerns have been raised
about clause 3(7). I assure colleagues that the clause does not
contravene in any way our foreign policy or inhibit in any way
the UK Government’s taking action if we believe there is activity
in the Occupied Palestinian Territories that requires to be
called out.
We continue to raise, as the Foreign Secretary has recently,
issues of illegal settler activity, and has been clear with the
Israeli Government that the UK Government are in profound
disagreement with some of those actions and some of that
activity. I will come on to that in just a second. I should say
that the clause does not prevent the Government establishing
sanctions or using travel bans against those who have been linked
to blatant human right abuses. It is simply the aim of this
legislation to prevent public bodies from adopting their own
foreign policy, as such decisions should ultimately be the remit
of the Government and this House.
Several hon. Members rose—
I know, given the nature of the debate on this Bill, that a
number of colleagues would like to intervene; I will try to
answer questions briefly, because I know a number of colleagues
would like to take part in the debate.
(North East Bedfordshire)
(Con)
Hypotheticals are not always helpful, but I beg my right hon.
Friend’s indulgence in this hypothetical on that particular point
about the interaction between clause 3(7) and UK foreign policy.
UK foreign policy is clear that illegal Israeli settlements in
the occupied territories are against international law. This Bill
would provide that, if a pension fund were given an investment
policy for expanding, say, an infrastructure fund proposal in the
occupied territories, it would have no moral basis for refusing
to invest, although that investment would be expanding Israeli
policies contrary to UK foreign policy. Can the Secretary of
State explain how to unpack that so that what he has just said is
what I believe is true?
It is specifically the case that public bodies, including the
local government pension scheme and local authorities, should not
be taking decisions that conflict with UK Government foreign
policy, and we are absolutely clear that it would conflict with
UK Government foreign policy if they were to engage in freelance
activity of that kind. However, it is perfectly open to any
representative, including any elected representative, to express
their personal disapproval of the activities of the Israeli
Government or any organisation that operates within the
settlements.
(Leeds East) (Lab)
I have been listening carefully to what the Secretary of State is
saying on that point, but last year, the Government stated:
“The UK has a clear position on Israeli settlements in the
Occupied Palestinian Territories: they are illegal under
international law”.[—[Official Report, 23 March 2023; Vol. 730,
c.
412.]](/search/column?VolumeNumber=730&ColumnNumber=412&House=1)
To speak plainly, is not the Secretary of State ashamed that,
through this clampdown on the democratic right to boycott, his
Government are restricting the rights of those who want to take
peaceful action against violations of international law, and are
in effect siding with those breaking international law?
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, who has taken a close
personal interest in the conflict—I appreciate the sincerity with
which he raises that point—absolutely not. There is a clear
intention in the Bill, which is to deal specifically with the
boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign and its attempts to
use the legitimacy of local government and other intermediate
institutions to undermine the UK Government’s foreign policy. The
UK Government, of whichever colour, must speak with one voice on
behalf of the whole United Kingdom when it comes to foreign
policy matters. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, the
Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office,
my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr
Mitchell), and the Foreign Secretary have, from this Dispatch Box
and in the other place, been clear with the Israeli Government
when they think that it is appropriate to criticise their actions
and indeed those of individuals operating within the settlements,
but there is an important distinction to be drawn between
criticism of the Israeli Government, criticism of the acts of
particular individuals and the nature of the BDS campaign
itself.
I am grateful to Opposition Front Benchers—although we have our
disagreements—and to Labour Friends of Israel for making it clear
that the BDS movement itself is explicitly and regrettably
antisemitic. It deliberately sets out to argue that the state of
Israel as a home for the Jewish people should not exist.
(Ipswich) (Con)
I agree with the comments that the Secretary of State has just
made. Israel is pretty much the only country that is targeted in
this way despite the fact there are a number of appalling regimes
around the world. On local authorities, does he agree that a lot
of councillors should focus on their core job of running local
services instead of virtue-signalling and clumsily weighing in on
complex international issues?
Not for the first time, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He
summed up in that intervention two of the critical points in the
Bill. First, local government has many important functions.
Intervening in foreign policy in a way that can exacerbate
community tensions is emphatically not one of them. Secondly,
there has been a unique focus on the state of Israel. Of course,
there are criticisms that can and should be mounted against the
state of Israel, its Government and their activities. However,
the BDS campaign singles out Israel for special treatment. We
have not seen attempts by local government to criticise, for
example, the actions of Bashar al-Assad in Syria or a variety of
other regimes that have been targeting innocent Muslim lives.
Again, one point that was made clearly by the now sadly departed
former Chief Rabbi, , was that antisemitism is a
virus that mutates over time. In the past, it was directed
towards Judaism as a faith. Then it mutated to be directed
towards the Jewish people through direct racism. Now antisemitism
finds an expression through an attempt to deny the Jewish people
the same right of self-determination and the same right to a
homeland that we extend to all peoples.
Support for the Bill from Jewish organisations in this
country—the Jewish Leadership
Council the Board of Deputies of British Jews and so on—has
been clear, but perhaps the most telling are the words of the
Community Security Trust, which is there to physically protect
Jewish people and communities. The CST is scrupulous in not
offering any commentary on matters in Israel and the middle east
or on foreign policy—it eschews doing so because it recognises
the diversity of views within the Jewish community on some of
those questions—but it has said that BDS
“has a chilling impact on Jews, a modern reminder of anti-Jewish
boycotts. It also serves to legitimise the shunning of Jews from
‘decent’ society. And having been shunned…that’s a half way house
to all manner of more abusive and physical outcomes.”
When we have seen a 537% increase in antisemitic incidents, I
think it important to bear those words in mind.
(Preseli Pembrokeshire)
(Con)
My right hon. Friend is making some extremely important points
about the nature of the BDS movement. Is it not the case that, as
he says, there have been very few examples of councils looking to
use the levers available to them to protest against other
international issues? Is that not because the whole BDS
movement—in fact, the label “BDS”—has been entirely constructed
as a weapon against the state of Israel? When we look at the
origins of the movement, we see, unfortunately, that it is
riddled from top to bottom with antisemitism.
I am afraid that my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct.
Again, to be more than fair, many prominent Labour voices have
made precisely that point: the BDS campaign, those who created it
and those who run it are very clear that they are singling out
Israel. They want to see an end to Israel as a Jewish state.
I am very conscious of the fact that a number of right hon. and
hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. I also want to
emphasise again that a horror and revulsion of antisemitism and
prejudice of all kinds is shared across this House, as is a
determination to see peace in the middle east. We have rehearsed
the arguments, with great contributions in Committee and on
Report, and I believe that this Bill is a targeted and
proportionate approach to dealing with a unique evil. I hope that
we will be able to support the Bill, but as I say, dissenting
voices in this House must always be heard with respect. With
that, I commend the Bill to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. As everybody knows, the debate will come to a conclusion
at 6.45 pm. A number of people are trying to catch my eye, so I
am thinking that speeches should last not much longer than three
minutes, to be frank, depending on the contributions of the Front
Benchers.
5.56pm
(Ashton-under-Lyne)
(Lab)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end
of the Question and add:
“this House, while opposing any discrimination or prejudice in
the economic activities of public bodies, believing that all such
bodies must act without bias or selectivity when making ethical
decisions on procurement and investment and recognising the
impact selective and biased campaigns have had on the Jewish
community in particular, declines to give a Third Reading to the
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill
because it does not effectively address the problem it rightly
seeks to solve, is incompatible with international law and UN
Security Council Resolutions, risks undermining support for
groups around the world facing persecution, includes needlessly
broad and sweeping draconian powers while placing unprecedented
restrictions on public bodies to express a view on current and
proposed policy and represents a major departure from the UK
Government’s long-established diplomatic position on the Occupied
Palestinian Territories and Golan Heights, in a way that
undermines the UK’s future credibility and capacity to support
diplomatic negotiations towards a just and lasting peace in
Israel and Palestine based on a two-state solution, at a time
when consistent support for that objective is more important than
ever.”
Let me start by making clear that the Labour party completely
opposes a policy of boycott, divestment and sanctions against
Israel. It is in everyone’s interest that we find a way forward
to address a genuine problem. Never has that been as important as
it is now, at a time of heightened tensions, fear and distress
both at home and abroad.
As such, throughout the passage of this Bill, we have always
tried to seek consensus. We do not think it is wrong for public
bodies to take ethical investment and procurement decisions. In
fact, there is a long tradition of councils and other bodies
taking stances on such questions. However, there is a difference
between applying consistent ethical principles and legitimate
criticism of foreign Governments, and what some have tried to do
by targeting just one individual state—for example, the world’s
only Jewish state—or, worse, using the cover of these issues to
whip up prejudice or discrimination. That is completely wrong.
For the Labour party, that will never change, and I thank the
Secretary of State for acknowledging that we share common ground
on those fundamental principles. On that basis, I had hoped that
by now we would have a Bill that reflects that common ground.
However, unfortunately, our efforts for consensus have been met
with blanket refusal. Four times we have come to this House with
an alternative approach, and four times Ministers have led
Government Members in voting down every single one of those
proposals, seeking not to unite the House but to divide it in
every sense. We did not want to be in this position, where the
House is being told to approve such a deeply flawed piece of
legislation, but regrettably that is where we have ended up,
because the Bill before us is indeed deeply flawed.
The Bill contains sweeping new powers that create more
uncertainty and run counter to our international obligations:
provisions that would ban public bodies from making procurement
decisions based on a country’s use of forced labour; a completely
unprecedented clause that makes it illegal for public bodies,
many of them directly elected, to express their view on policy; a
new power for the Secretary of State himself to call in and
interrogate those he suspects fall foul of the Bill; and, at its
heart, a measure that is incompatible with both the Government’s
own long-standing foreign policy and international law, flying in
the face of the UK’s obligations. That is why I respectfully
dispute what the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks.
Explicitly equating Israel with the Occupied Palestinian
Territories and the Golan Heights is an unprecedented step. To my
knowledge, this wording has never appeared in British statute
before, and it seriously undermines our country’s long-standing,
consistent and cross-party support for a two-state solution, so I
could not be more disappointed.
There are moments when all sides of this House come together to
resolve the deep-seated issues facing our communities, and this
could have been one of them. Instead, the Government have refused
to listen, so as the Bill is read a Third time, we have had to
put forward a reasoned amendment as a final plea to the Secretary
of State to reconsider. We all know that this is a highly unusual
procedure, so I want to make it clear why we have deemed it
necessary. We recognise that there is a problem to solve and we
want to solve it too, but if this Bill means a protracted legal
battle in the courts, creates more uncertainty than it addresses
or, worse, simply fuels yet more division, it will have achieved
nothing. It could, in fact, make matters worse.
I have no doubt that this Bill will be scrutinised and challenged
if sent to our colleagues in the other place. I can only hope
that we find further opportunities to forge a consensus, but the
Bill before the House is simply not fit to send to them. The
greatest shame is that, in this challenging time, we had the
chance to speak with one voice against discrimination and
division, and for unity at home and lasting peace abroad, and it
is in that spirit that I urge the whole House to support our
amendment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. There are eight Members standing, so let us start with a
limit of four minutes.
6.02pm
(North West Hampshire) (Con)
Again, as I said on Second Reading and on Report, I speak with a
heavy heart and in some dismay, but I tell those on my Front
Bench that I will be voting against the Bill this evening.
This Bill obviously comes at a dreadful time, as we mourn the
deaths of so many Israelis in heinous circumstances on 7 October
and the deaths of so many Palestinians subsequently, many of whom
still lie under the rubble. The fact that we in this House would
seek to legislate against non-violent protest in such an
illiberal and draconian way seems to me tragic at this particular
point in time.
As the Secretary of State knows, there are broadly three areas in
which I and other colleagues attempted to amend the Bill and have
concerns. The first area is, as the shadow Secretary of State
pointed out, the separate identification in the Bill of Israel,
and its conflation with the occupied territories and the Golan
Heights. We believe that contravenes our undertakings at the
United Nations and, indeed, in international law, which of course
means that the Bill will spend a lot of time in the courts, if it
eventually sees the light of day. At the same time, that is a
cause of great dismay to our allies in the Arab world, who of
course we need at the moment more than ever to join us in seeking
peace in the dreadful conflict taking place in the middle east.
That we should undermine our own status as fair dealers, as it
were, in that part of the world seems to me an unforced
error.
The second area of serious concern is obviously the impact on
free speech. Again as the shadow Secretary of State pointed out,
it seems to me incredible that we are putting elected officials
and others in a position where if they just stand up in certain
circumstances and say they disagree with the law, they will be
committing a criminal act. It seems to me an incredibly illiberal
and backward step that we would strike a blow against pluralism
in that way. The Bill could stand without those restrictions on
free speech, and as the Secretary of State will know, we
attempted to amend it to remove them, but that attempt was
rebuffed.
The third area is the sheer scale of the Bill’s impact and the
number of organisations that will be drawn into it. It is not
just the local government pension fund, of which I am a member,
but also every university in the land and private sector
companies that perform a public service of some kind and are
contractors to the Government that will be drawn in. That is
important because, as the Secretary of State will know, this
subject is very litigious. There are lawyers sympathetic to
Israel and those sympathetic to Palestine. From the Secretary of
State’s speech, it seems that the Bill is aimed squarely at that
particular conflict in this world. Lawyers on both sides will
gear up, and an industry will arise to attack, defend, analyse
and scrutinise every decision, and all these bodies will have to
take significant internal legal advice to deal with it as well.
Subjecting them all to this enormous burden seems to me
disproportionate to the problem that the Government are trying to
address.
Finally, my greatest concern is for the impact on British Jewry.
As the Secretary of State has said, he is trying to bring this
Bill in to deal with the growth in antisemitism in the United
Kingdom, but my view is that the Bill will play entirely into the
hands of the antisemites. I imagine that this Bill will be manna
to those rotten social media groups and WhatsApp groups that
espouse conspiracy theories about Israel and the Jewish
community. They will see this, as Jonathan Freedland—
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. I call the SNP spokesperson, with no time limit.
6.06pm
(Glasgow South West)
(SNP)
It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North
West Hampshire (). I hope that other Members listened to his
contribution and what he had to say, because I share his concerns
about using domestic legislation in this Bill to deviate from
Foreign Office policy. That is the clear concern that many of us
have.
In an exchange with the hon. Member for Caerphilly () when we explored this matter
in Committee, we talked about what the actual foreign policy is.
The Bill, as it is currently constructed, clearly conflates
Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan
Heights, yet the UK Government’s guidance on overseas business
risk states:
“The UK has a clear position on Israeli settlements: The West
Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights have
been occupied by Israel since 1967. Settlements are illegal under
international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten a
two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
The concern we have is that the Bill is less than subtle as a
change, if not to direct policy then certainly in emphasis.
Equating Israel and the occupied territories is unique in any
legislation, let alone in a statement, and it questions the UK’s
long-established, cross-party support for a two-state solution
based on 1967 borders.
As a party, we believe that the Bill is also an assault on
Westminster’s devolution settlements, not just for the Scottish
Parliament but for the Welsh Senedd. The legislation undermines
devolution and restricts the ability of public bodies to make
their own moral judgment on matters of human rights and climate
consciousness.
I heard the Secretary of State argue that public bodies should
not deviate from foreign policy. As we have discovered in this
debate and in all the debates we have had, in 1981, City of
Glasgow District Council—a Labour-led local authority—gave Nelson
Mandela the freedom of the city of Glasgow. It also encouraged
the boycotting of South African goods and services, but Foreign
Office policy at the time was not to support sanctions on the
apartheid South African regime, so the question again is: could
Glasgow District Council in 1981 have awarded Nelson Mandela the
freedom of the city of Glasgow, and would it have been allowed to
encourage the boycott of South African goods and services, under
this Bill? If the Bill had been in place then, the answer to that
question would be no.
(Edinburgh East) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is doing a great job of putting on record the
SNP’s opposition to this foul piece of legislation. Does he think
it is particularly distasteful and grotesque that the Bill is
coming at this time and that the UK Government’s only legislative
response to what is happening in the middle east is to try to
bring forward proposals to stifle criticism of Israel, when it is
clear and there is so much evidence that Israel stands facing
charges of breaching international law and breaching the Geneva
convention? Surely most right-minded people in this country who
believe in decency and fairness will think that this is the wrong
thing at the wrong time.
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I think many
Members have a concern about whether it is appropriate to proceed
with the Bill at this moment in time. Other Members may wish to
state that when they get the opportunity to speak.
The Bill extends to devolved Governments and local authorities in
the devolved nations; because procurement and investment by
public bodies are not reserved matters, it would appear to breach
the Sewel convention if the devolved legislatures do not agree. I
note that the Scottish Parliament has not provided legislative
consent to the Bill.
We are also concerned that public bodies will not be able to make
decisions about environmental protections. For example, Friends
of the Earth has said that the Bill will
“prevent public bodies from divesting from fossil fuel, as well
as diverting their money away from inadvertently funding human
rights abuses abroad, such as modern slavery in corporate supply
chains.”
Labour rights would also not be allowed to be considered. Poor
workers’ rights are not restricted to any one region of the
world—we see them from China to Colombia, from Bangladesh to
Angola, from Cambodia to Qatar and from Mexico to Romania—and,
according to the World Economic Forum, the abuse of workers’
rights around the world reached a record high in 2022. I believe
that when public bodies make funding arrangements for procurement
or anything else, they should be allowed to consider labour
rights. Our concern is that the Bill does not allow that to
happen.
I want to make it clear—as I have at every stage of the Bill—that
the Scottish National party is concerned that antisemitism is on
the rise around the world. We must not look away, and we must
call it out whenever we see it. Antisemitism is a truly global
and iniquitous poison. The Bill does not address the very
epidemic of rising antisemitism that the Government claim they
want to tackle. We are also concerned that the Government have
ignored the evidence and concerns that many organisations have
put forward about the Bill. The Balfour Project, the trade union
Unison—of which I am proud to be a member—the Union of Jewish
Students and Jews for Justice for Palestinians have all provided
good evidence on their concerns about the Bill, but I am afraid
they have not been taken on board by the Government when we have
considered these matters.
The Government have rejected sensible amendments. Some of us have
real concerns about clause 3 and very real concerns about clause
4. I never thought I would ever say it, and I am having to say
again that I seek the removal of clause 4. The Government
rejected amendments to protect devolution and other public
bodies, and amendments to ensure compatibility with human rights.
The changing of foreign policy, the impinging on the rights of
devolved institutions and other public bodies, the ignoring of
the evidence and the rejecting of sensible amendments are the key
reasons why the Bill does not deserve a Third Reading.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. There will be a three-minute limit until the end of the
debate.
6.13pm
(Chipping Barnet)
(Con)
I support the Bill and urge others to do so as well. But I also
want to emphasise that I very much respect the views of those who
have concerns about how it will operate in practice, and I know
that all Members of the House, whatever their views on the Bill,
remain committed to a peaceful settlement and a negotiated
two-state solution.
I have just returned from a visit to Israel, which will appear in
the next publication of the Register of Members’ Financial
Interests, and I believe strongly that we should be backing
Israel, not boycotting it. It has had to take military action to
defend itself from a vile and repulsive terrorist attack in which
more than 1,000 people lost their lives.
Last week I visited an exhibition in Tel Aviv about the Nova
music festival, where hundreds of young people were gunned down.
The displays of shoes, clothes and bags were chillingly
reminiscent of Yad Vashem and the piles of belongings taken from
Jewish people on arrival at the death camps. We can be in no
doubt that the BDS movement is divisive and damaging: it rejects
a two-state solution and consistently opposes efforts to bring
Israelis and Palestinians together. As the Government have stated
again this evening, BDS activities drive antisemitism. I am
especially concerned about the impact of Israel boycotts on
campus, where anti-Israel hatred so often morphs into racist
treatment of Jewish students. It is entirely unacceptable for
Jewish students to feel unable to be open about their faith or
identity for fear of reprisals and harassment.
Furthermore, foreign policy is the responsibility of Government.
It is, and always has been, a reserved power. There is no need or
justification for universities, local authorities or other public
bodies to run their own foreign policy. If sanctions or boycotts
need to be imposed, that is a decision to be made in this House
at a national level.
In conclusion, this important Bill, at a very difficult time,
tackles a very serious problem. I commend it to the House and I
hope my colleagues will back it.6.16pm
(Oxford West and Abingdon)
(LD)
It is with a heavy heart, again, that I am participating in
today’s debate. Throughout December, alongside the Pope and the
, I sought to shed
light on the suffering of Christians in Gaza city, who include my
own family. Let me express sincere gratitude to Members across
the House who have approached me in the last few days to ask how
they are. Although the media attention mitigated the immediate
dangers, the plight of Gaza’s residents persists—living hand to
mouth, drinking unclean water and wondering how on earth the
world is letting this happen. I am equally concerned about the
impact on the streets in the UK. We are seeing a rise in
antisemitism and anti-Muslim hate, which is unacceptable and must
be called out.
(Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
(PC)
I, too, extend my sympathies to the hon. Lady and her family. My
own council Cyngor Gwynedd called for an immediate ceasefire last
month. Echoing people’s concerns, it condemned both Hamas
violence and Israel’s disproportionate attacks on civilians. The
Senedd has also called for a ceasefire. The Bill will restrict
members of Welsh democratic institutions from voicing their
views, and I am sure the hon. Lady agrees that such restriction
on free speech is a threat to our democracy across the nations of
the United Kingdom.
I absolutely agree. The Bill does not respect directly elected
bodies and those representatives. The issue is also about the
timing. The death toll in Gaza now exceeds 22,000, and over 100
Israeli hostages remain. I do not put those numbers side by side
to compare, because every single individual lost or missing is a
tragedy. The humanitarian situation has reached new depths. A
doctor constituent of mine who is working in Gaza said that he
has seen preventable deaths due to staff shortages, and the
medical system has totally collapsed. We now have injured with
nowhere to go.
Tomorrow, the International Court of Justice will consider South
Africa’s case on Israel’s alleged violations and obligations
under the genocide convention. I am sure I need not remind this
House that it was precisely local government-led interventions
here in the UK—which would be outlawed under the Bill—that
pressured the Thatcher Government to add their support to the
people of South Africa. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary said
that he did not agree with the ICJ case and
“I do not think we should bandy around terms like genocide”.
South Africa is not bandying around terms. The ICJ is precisely
the court in which those allegations should be looked at. The
principle is simple: the UK should not pre-judge the outcome of
the legal case. It should back the process and the court itself
full-throatedly.
I end by simply saying that the Liberal Democrats will continue
to advocate for an immediate bilateral ceasefire, securing
hostage release, delivering aid and working towards that precious
two-state solution. Our response to this war will be judged by
history. In a fractured world where democracies need to be
strengthened and the international rules-based order helped, the
Bill undermines local government, damages our global standing and
divides our streets. This place should be a place where we unite,
not divide people. Frankly, the Liberal Democrats believe that
this debate should not be happening. We stand with humanity and
peace, and it is for that reason that we will be voting against
the Bill today.
6.20pm
Sir (Northampton North) (Con)
The Government’s introduction of the Bill is welcome and I
support it. It was in a Conservative party manifesto years ago,
and we have a mandate and an obligation to pass it. This
legislation will finally stop public bodies from wrongfully
pursuing their own independent foreign policy agenda, which have
almost exclusively been the result of divisive, antisemitic
partisan campaigns pursued by the antisemitic BDS movement. Of
course, as has already been mentioned, that is a movement whose
executive board, the BDS national committee, is a coalition of
proscribed terrorist groups, including Hamas. So I support the
Bill.
The boycott movement has undeniably succeeded, sadly, up to this
point in its chilling and racist effects. Who can forget the
loathsome policy—frankly, it was reminiscent of 20th century
fascism—of West Dunbartonshire Council in 2011, when its
libraries banned new book volumes printed or published in the
Jewish state? Yes, it banned Jewish books. Allied Universal, the
parent company of G4S, sold a business in Israel following
pressure from the movement. In a series of councils across
England, Scotland and Wales, including Leicester City Council,
Swansea City Council and Gwynedd Council, motions were passed
banning imports from Israel. They are inherently discriminatory
and a breach of our World Trade Organisation obligations. Those
councils are an embarrassment to this country and they should
have been ashamed of their racism.
The supreme irony is that Palestinian and Israeli businesses in
the region condemn the movement. If anyone takes the trouble to
listen to the leaders of those businesses, they are instead
seeking bilateralism. Nearly 100,000 Palestinians are employed by
Israeli companies. Their workforces receive higher wages and
enjoy greater protections than elsewhere in the Palestinian
economy and its equivalents across the middle east. Regrettably,
the BDS movement strengthens extremists and weakens moderates,
which is why it has even opposed peaceful coexistence projects,
such as Heartbeat and OneVoice, that bring Israelis and
Palestinians together.
Speaking as a former Attorney General, I assure the House that
the ban will not apply to individuals or private organisations
where they are not carrying out public functions. That is
testimony to the Government’s respect for freedom of speech.
(Gloucester) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend has confirmed that the Bill will
not apply to individuals, which is absolutely right and
reassuring. Does he agree that it is also vital that the Bill
should not be seen to interfere in any way with British
Government policy on the illegal activity by Israeli settlers in
the Occupied Palestinian Territories, or indeed the sanctions
that the Government have already applied against some of
them?
Sir
I am grateful for that question and I think the Secretary of
State has answered it in the affirmative. The Bill will not
change the UK’s approach to the middle east peace process or its
position on settlements, and nor should it: whichever Government
happen to be in power, it is only right that this House and the
Executive of this country make those sorts of decisions. It will,
however, strengthen the Government’s diplomatic hand by
rightfully returning the powers that have gradually been siphoned
away by local authorities, third-tier councils and the rest of
it, encourage peaceful coexistence and fulfil our manifesto
commitment.
The Bill will push back against the malevolent anti-western
forces of Hamas. It is those that threaten our way of life and
dissolve our security. It is that movement that has been abetting
malicious international forces in Tehran and in the Kremlin. It
is for those reasons that the House not only has a responsibility
but a fundamental duty to vote for the Bill today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. I shall be calling the Secretary of State to wind up the
debate no later than 6.42 pm, and the Division will take place at
6.45 pm.
6.24pm
(Leicester East) (Ind)
As we have already heard, the Bill is largely an explicit
reaction to the success of Leicester City Council in defeating
legal attempts in 2018 to force it to end its boycott of goods
from illegal Israeli settlements until Israel complies with
international law and ends its illegal occupation. Arguably,
Leicester’s stance has been thoroughly vindicated by events over
the last few months, during which Israel has launched what South
Africa and many United Nations bodies have called “genocidal
acts” on Gaza, which have also killed hundreds in the west bank
and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, while protecting
Israeli settlers as they beat and even kill Palestinians trying
to go about their peaceful lives.
While Leicester and other councils have been shown to be doing
the right thing, the Government have found themselves yet again
on the wrong side of the issue, backing the oppressor against the
oppressed and giving the Israeli regime licence to kill tens of
thousands. Many of my constituents back the council’s actions and
bitterly oppose Israel’s war crimes against Palestinians, and the
illegal settlements whose proliferation has only accelerated. The
Bill would prevent Leicester and councils like it from carrying
out the will of the voters who elected them, tying the hands of
the principled and enforcing the will of a Government who have
shown that they prize geopolitical and economic ends above the
lives of tens of thousands of innocent children, women, teachers,
doctors, aid workers and journalists. It is a Bill designed to
hobble democracy and decency. It subjugates local British
democracy to the actions and wishes of a foreign occupying power.
It is clearly also intended to circumvent the will of the court,
given that Leicester comprehensively won its case against those
trying to overturn its boycott.
The Conservatives appear to have little regard for South Africa’s
forensically compiled case against Israel, which has invoked the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide at the International Court of Justice. Tomorrow that
case will begin to be heard at The Hague. A boycott, divestment
and sanctions campaign lasting almost three decades was a vital
factor in the bringing down of South African apartheid. South
Africa knows all about the power of such a peaceful but resolute
campaign, and is uniquely well placed to bring a case to the
International Court of Justice, invoking the genocide convention
against Israel. However, despite having only six weeks ago
appended their signature to Gambia’s genocide case at the
International Court of Justice against Myanmar, specifically
because of Myanmar’s treatment of children—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady’s time is up.
6.27pm
(Ruislip, Northwood and
Pinner) (Con)
There is about £70 billion of local government spending in the
UK, which is a very significant economic factor. It is entirely
right that, in a context where local authorities have their remit
within the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 and the most
advantageous tender rules, introduced by the Department for
Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, they are able to ensure
that that money is spent in a way that fully expresses their
ambitions and the aspirations and views of their local
communities. Clearly we need to ensure—and this is why I support
the Bill so strongly—that we have appropriate limits when there
are risks that that will stray into causing real, serious
division and interfere with what is more appropriately national
policy.
During my time at the Local Government Association, I engaged in
a good deal of effort working with the local government friends
of Israel group and observing the massive amount of BDS lobbying
of local councillors. I must pay tribute to our local government
counterparts. Overwhelmingly, despite that pressure, they took
the view that this was not an appropriate course of action, and
that in fact they should ensure that the concerns and aspirations
of their residents were front and centre rather than engaging
with international campaigns that were both beyond their remit
and at risk of conflicting with the more broadly expressed
objectives of the country.
We should not forget—this is why what the Secretary of State said
about retaining the capacity for freedom of speech is so
important—that we have counterparts in local government who are
specifically elected on an international platform. For example,
many will recall Justice for Kashmir, later the People’s Justice
party, which became a significant force in the politics of
Birmingham City Council. It was specifically elected on an
international law issue. Later, its members joined the Liberal
Democrats. Clearly, communities felt that the issue was so
important that they were prepared to elect local councillors on
that platform.
As a Member who represents a diverse constituency and who has
heard a lot from people on both sides of this debate, I want to
finish by saying that the incredibly bitter divisions that have
arisen about the Bill and other issues are not seen and felt by
my constituents in day-to-day life. When a local Muslim charity
wanted a base, it found one in St John’s church. When it wanted
to raise funds to purchase its own permanent base, the local
synagogue spoke out in support of that. There is a real sense of
solidarity among our communities, regardless of faith or any
other element of diversity in their backgrounds. We need to
ensure that BDS, which solely targets the state of Israel, is
restricted from inflicting any further damage on our
communities.6.30pm
(Hammersmith) (Lab)
This is a bad Bill both in intent and in the methods that it
adopts, which are harmful to Britain’s reputation around the
world, to human rights, to the proper conduct of state actors and
corporations, to citizens’ freedom of speech and to the actions
of public and elected bodies. It has nothing to recommend it. It
aims to prevent any boycott and to affect the right of public
bodies, especially those that are elected, to consider factors
beyond commercial procurement and investment decisions, such as
ethical factors, which are often also commercially sensible
factors. It neuters the exercise of choice by pension funds,
employees and citizens. It constricts the freedom of expression
of religious groups, trade unions and elected councillors. It
proscribes freedom of speech in a draconian way, which sets an
unfortunate precedent.
(Warwick and Leamington)
(Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share concerns that clause 4 may contradict
the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 and go against
the academic freedom that is enjoyed on university campuses?
I do not think it is lost on any hon. Member that the Bill flatly
contradicts the Government’s rhetoric on freedom of speech in a
most draconian way.
The so-called exceptions require actions to be unlawful before
action can be taken, but we know how difficult it is for foreign
states to have convictions against them in that way. The
Government produced no evidence, only assertion, to support the
provisions.
The Bill fails every test. It weakens human rights protections
for persecuted groups around the world, from the Rohingya to the
Uyghurs. It particularly fails Israel and Palestine. It singles
out Israel for special treatment. In the words of Daniel Levy,
the respected commentator and former Israeli negotiator when
talking to MPs earlier today, the Bill demands a lower, not a
higher standard of Israel. It does not distinguish between Israel
and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Singling out Israel and
conflating Israel and the OPT breaks the consensus that both main
parties have maintained under successive Governments.
The subject of settlements often comes up. For example, the right
hon. Member for North West Hampshire () and I raised it in the urgent question earlier
this week. Why, at a time when Foreign Office guidance advises
against investment in settlements, when the Government have
rightly spoken out about settlements being reintroduced in Gaza
and rightly talked about sanctions against violent settlers, do
the Government try to prevent, through the Bill, any action from
being taken against settlements that are illegal under
international law? A ban on settlement goods or investment in
settlements is not the same in any respect as a boycott. The
Government constantly dodge that issue, and they need to deal
with it. The signals that they are sending out are entirely
contradictory.
I hope that the Bill will be defeated. If it is not defeated and
the reasoned amendment is not accepted tonight, I hope that we
will return to the issue in the other place and that the Bill
will not see the light of day before a general election. It
certainly should not. It would be a shameful legacy, even for
this Government.6.35pm
(West Bromwich East)
(Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling
Up, Housing and Communities for bringing forward this landmark
Bill. The Government should be applauded for taking such strong
action.
The Bill’s intention to promote community cohesion should be
endorsed by all Members of this House, especially when
antisemitism has sharply risen here in the UK since 7 October,
the day that saw the most deaths of Jewish people since the
holocaust, in a horrendous massacre committed by the Hamas
terrorist group. Jews worldwide have suffered anti-Jewish hatred
in response to that slaughter.
Before Israel had even responded, before Israel and its allies
could even fathom the full extent of the utter horror sown by
Hamas, demonstrators filled the streets of London to celebrate
Hamas’s attack. Flags flown in solidarity with our ally Israel
were vandalised. In the two months from 7 October to 13 December.
the CST recorded 2,098 antisemitic incidents here in the UK,
dwarfing the 800 incidents recorded in the first nine months of
2023.
Jewish businesses have been targeted, as well as businesses with
any small connection to Jewish owners or the Jewish state. Social
media is rife with long lists of companies to boycott, just
because the BDS movement does not like the people who run them.
Intimidating protests have taken place outside the likes of Zara
and McDonald’s. Young children have been taunted after enjoying
their Happy Meal at the fast food chain and, in one incident,
rodents were released into a McDonald’s chain in Birmingham, in
my neighbouring constituency.
Jewish students have been boycotted, with university societies
and Sunday league football clubs refusing to play against Jewish
players and societies. BDS targets not only businesses but
people. It is appalling that publicly funded bodies would give
succour to such division and extremism.
Yesterday, I held a Westminster Hall debate on the increase in
antisemitic offences, and I was pleased to hear colleagues’
commitment to stamping out anti-Jewish hatred on the streets of
the UK. That commitment to reducing antisemitism will be helped
by voting in favour of this Bill today.
The BDS movement is antisemitic. The movement is against peace
and normalisation. It calls for the eradication of Israel, the
world’s only Jewish state. The Anti-Defamation League reports
that BDS campaigns frequently include antisemitic tropes of
Jewish power and dual loyalty, as well as accusing the Jewish
people and Israel of being culpable for crises across the globe.
BDS activity advanced by public bodies has legitimised and driven
antisemitism in the UK. By exclusively targeting Israel and
singling out Jewish people in the UK, it has created divisions
that our society needs to be repaired.
This is our opportunity to reassure the Jewish community and show
them our support. BDS unfairly targets Jewish businesses and
people, as well as Palestinians who work for Israeli companies—I
have spoken about that before. At a time when we strive for peace
in the middle east, BDS inflames tensions and rejects
co-existence. I stand in full support of this Bill and of the
Jewish community here in the UK and abroad.6.38pm
(Glasgow Central)
(SNP)
I oppose this anti-boycott Bill on several points. It is
difficult to see its timing as anything other than a cynical move
by the UK Government. The Secretary of State talks about support
for community cohesion and a peaceful two-state solution, but
this Bill does nothing to achieve either. Instead, it will
seriously curtail our civil liberties and undermine devolution.
If the volume of correspondence I have received on this Bill is
any indication, the people of Glasgow, as ever, see right through
the Tories.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West () mentioned the granting of
the freedom of the city of Glasgow to Nelson Mandela. In 1986,
Glasgow District Council renamed St George’s Place as Nelson
Mandela Place as a mark of the city’s solidarity with Nelson
Mandela, who was still imprisoned at the time. The point was that
the South African consulate was located on the street and was
forced to use an address bearing the name of South Africa’s most
high-profile political prisoner.
This act of international resistance would simply not have been
possible if this legislation had been in place in 1986 as, at
that time, the UK Government were still refusing to condemn
apartheid. Who would want to speak with one voice when that was
what the UK Government were saying on Scotland’s behalf? Indeed,
even discussion of such an act would have been unlikely to take
place under clause 4’s gagging effect. According to Liberty:
“In practice, a public body seeking to comply with the Bill is
likely to take steps to distance itself from anything which
suggests that it holds any political or moral views as to the
conduct of foreign states, for fear that it could be found to be
in breach of the ban or the related prohibition on
statements.”
This legislation will undoubtedly alter the executive competence
of Scottish Ministers and should be opposed by all of those who
value devolution.
The provisions in this Bill are disproportionate and, frankly,
unnecessary. The Bill hands sweeping powers to the Secretary of
State and the Treasury to request information from the devolved
Administrations to assess whether a breach of the boycott ban or
gagging clause has occurred and to impose a compliance notice.
This is a huge overstep. There are already significant
protections in Scottish procurement legislation for bidders from
countries where a relevant trade agreement exists. It is not
clear what problem the UK Government are trying to fix with this
Bill. Worse, the Bill makes it unlawful for Scottish Ministers
even to publish a statement that they would have acted in a
certain way if not curtailed by these measures. The legislative
consent memorandum published by the Deputy First Minister
describes this as an “assault on democratic expression”.
As we head into an election year, the Prime Minister is affirming
that the legacy he and his predecessors will leave behind will be
one of a democracy in tatters, faith in public institutions
annihilated and our hard-won rights stripped bare. It is
increasingly the case that the only hope left for people in
Scotland to protect our democratic freedoms is the hope of an
independent Scotland.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I call , to speak until 6.42
pm.6.41pm
(Penistone and Stocksbridge)
(Con)
I support this legislation, but I find it very sad that we need
it. When I first heard about the holocaust as a child at school,
I was shocked. I was shocked at the scale of the evil, the horror
of what happened to the Jews and the fact that it could have been
allowed to happen. As an adult, I have visited Yad Vashem,
Auschwitz and the forests in Poland where thousands upon
thousands of Jews, including children, were murdered in cold
blood by Nazi soldiers because they were Jews.
No one walks away from those sites in any doubt about the
potential consequences of antisemitism, but one thing I was sure
of before 7 October was that that would never happen again.
Surely the world—this country, at least—is alive to the
consequences of anti-Jewish attitudes, to the importance of not
tolerating antisemitism and to the need for Israel, an Israel
that has the same right to exist and to defend itself as any
other sovereign nation. But now I am not so convinced that we
have learned the lessons of antisemitism. Polling shows shocking
levels of support for Hamas among young people here and in the
United States. That is being driven by social media, but it is
also being fostered—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. With the leave of the House, I call the Secretary of
State.
6.42pm
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to thank
everyone who has spoken on Third Reading, including my hon.
Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (), who was articulating the
vital importance of recognising where antisemitism begins and
where it ends. I also wish to thank those who spoke powerfully
from a personal point of view: my right hon. Friend the Member
for Chipping Barnet (), who has only recently
returned from Israel, of which she has been such a strong friend
and supporter, and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon
(). Our heart goes out to not
only her family, but all those suffering in Gaza at the
moment.
I wish briefly to address one misconception, which is that this
Bill acts as an effective restraint—a gagging clause—on free
speech. The hon. Member for Hammersmith () talked of faith groups
being silenced and so on. As the explanatory notes make clear,
individuals are in no way prohibited from expressing their view,
however disagreeable we might find it, on the conflict in Israel
and Gaza, or from expressing a view, which I would abhor, that
the state of Israel should not exist. What is clear is that only
public authorities, not individuals, are governed by this Bill.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington () rightly drew attention to
the importance of freedom of speech, not least on campus and with
academic freedom at its heart. I can reassure him, and he can be
reassured, that whatever other misgivings he has about this Bill,
it is not a direct assault on the principle of free speech. It is
simply, clearly and tightly drawn in order to ensure that public
bodies, public authorities, cannot abuse the position that has
been vested in them as corporate bodies to more broadly undermine
the foreign policy of the UK or, particularly in this case, as
has been pointed out by a number of hon. Members and indeed by
the Opposition Front-Bench team, to give succour to an explicitly
antisemitic campaign. Again, I stress there will be different
opinions across the House about the best way of securing Israel
and of securing freedom for the Palestinians. The fact that
debates are so intense in this House reflects the care and
passion that so many Members bring to that debate.
However, the Bill is explicitly about making sure that citizens
in the United Kingdom, who have been targeted by explicitly
antisemitic campaigns, get the protection for which the
organisations that stand up for them have been asking. In the
spirit of the Community Security Trust, the Board of Deputies of
British Jews and the Jewish Leadership
Council I hope that as many Members as possible—
(Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
(PC)
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
I will not as I have only seconds left. I hope that as many
Members as possible will feel that they can support the
legislation.
6.45pm
More than one hour having elapsed since the commencement of
proceedings on the first motion, the Deputy Speaker put the
Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be
concluded at that time (Order, 25 October). Question put, That
the amendment be made.
[Division 40
The House divided:
Ayes
228
Noes
284
Question accordingly negatived.
Held on 10 January 2024 at
6.45pm](/Commons/2024-01-10/division/D227F9DB-2E0D-412C-8751-D975673B43A3/CommonsChamber?outputType=Names)
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 62(2)), That the Bill
be now read the
Third time.
[Division 41
The House divided:
Ayes
282
Noes
235
Question accordingly agreed to.
Held on 10 January 2024 at
6.59pm](/Commons/2024-01-10/division/2F7667CA-552B-4C0E-895F-5F71BF4745DC/CommonsChamber?outputType=Names)
Bill read the Third time and passed.
|
