Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Economic impact assessment for Wales—

“Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Minister for the Cabinet Office must lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the Act on the economy in Wales.”

New clause 3—Assessment of the impact of the Act on the provision of food compliant with religious dietary beliefs and on the prevention of discrimination—

“Within six months of the passage of this Act, a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament a statement on their assessment of the impact of the Act on—

(a) the procurement of food meeting religious dietary beliefs, and

(b) the prevention of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief.”

Amendment 12, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, at end insert—

“(1A) But subsection (2) does not have effect in relation to a decision which falls within the competency of Senedd Cymru unless Senedd Cymru has passed a resolution granting its consent to the application of that subsection to such decisions.”

This amendment would require the consent of Senedd Cymru for the Bill to apply to decisions within the sphere of Welsh devolved legislative competence.

Amendment 26, page 1, line 5, leave out

“must not have regard to a territorial consideration”

and insert “must not act”.

This amendment, and Amendment 27, would remove the reference to a “territorial consideration” in the legislation.

Amendment 36, page 1, line 6, leave out from “would” to “was” in line 7, and insert “is”.

This amendment is to probe the use of a subjective, rather than an objective, test to establish whether a decision-maker has contravened clause 1.

Amendment 35, page 1, line 6, leave out from “that” to “influenced” in line 7 and insert “is”.

This amendment is to probe the use of a subjective, rather than an objective, test to establish whether a decision-maker has contravened clause 1.

Amendment 27, page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment, and Amendment 26, would remove the reference to a “territorial consideration” in the legislation.

Amendment 37, page 1, leave out lines 20 to 22.

This amendment is to probe the impact of the legislation on individuals, such as those working within public authorities.

Amendment 34, in clause 2, page 2, line 4, at end insert—

“(1A) But section 1 does not apply to decisions of Scottish Ministers.”

This amendment would remove decisions of Scottish Ministers from the scope of the Bill.

Amendment 14, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

This amendment would remove provisions allowing Ministers to amend the Schedule, via regulations, to add a description of decision or consideration, or amend or remove considerations added under previous regulations.

Amendment 18, page 2, line 28, leave out paragraph (b).

This amendment, and Amendments 19 and 20, seek to remove Scotland from the extent of this Bill.

Amendment 13, page 2, line 40, at end insert—

“(4A) Section 1 does not apply to a decision which has been made in accordance with a Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights.

(4B) A Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights—

(a) is a public authority’s policy criteria relating to disinvestment in cases concerning contravention of human rights; and

(b) must be applied consistently by the public authority to all foreign countries.

(4C) Within 60 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish, and lay before Parliament, guidance on the form, content and application of Statements for the purposes of this section

(4D) Public authorities must have regard to the guidance referenced in subsection (4C) when devising a Statement.”

This amendment would exempt public bodies from the prohibition in section 1, where the decision has been made in accordance with a Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights. A Statement may not single out individual nations, but would have to be applied consistently, and in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 7, page 3, line 7, leave out subsection (7).

This amendment would remove the prohibition on the Government specifying Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the Occupied Golan Heights as a country or territory to which the prohibition on boycotts does not apply, meaning they are treated just as all other countries and territories.

Amendment 21, page 3, line 11, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).

This amendment would remove the existing stipulation that the power to exempt a country or territory from section 1 may not be used in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the Occupied Golan Heights.

Amendment 2, page 3, line 13, leave out clause 4.

Amendment 3, in clause 4, page 3, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).

This amendment would remove the prohibition on a person publishing a statement indicating that they would have acted in a way prohibited by clause 1 if it were legal to do so.

Amendment 16, page 3, line 24, at end insert—

“(4) This section does not apply to—

(a) a local authority,

(b) an elected mayor of a local authority

(c) a mayor for the area of a combined authority,

(d) the Mayor of London,

(e) the London Assembly

(f) the Scottish Parliament, or

(g) Senedd Cymru.”

This amendment would exempt elected bodies from the prohibition on making public statements indicating that they intend to, or would intend to if it were lawful, act in a way that would contravene section 1.

Amendment 28, page 3, line 24, at end insert—

“(4) Nothing in this section requires any act or omission that conflicts with the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Human Rights Act 1998.”

This amendment would ensure that any act or omission under the “gagging clause” in clause 4 would not conflict with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), in particular, Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) and Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the ECHR as incorporated by the HRA.

Amendment 29, in clause 7, page 5, line 8, leave out “, or is about to make”.

This amendment, together with Amendments 30 to 33, would remove the ability of information notices and compliance notices to be given to public bodies prior to an actual contravention of the ban.

Amendment 30, page 5, line 12, leave out “, or is likely to contravene”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 29.

Amendment 31, page 5, line 15, leave out “, or is about to publish,”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 29.

Amendment 32, page 5, line 18, leave out “, or is likely to contravene,”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 29.

Amendment 38, page 5, line 39, leave out from “legislation” to the end of line 41.

This amendment is to probe the way the legislation appears to “qualify” the data protection legislation.

Amendment 33, in clause 8, page 6, line 6, leave out “, or is likely to contravene”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 29.

Amendment 4, in clause 12, page 8, line 4, at end insert—

“(1A) But section 1 does not apply in relation to a fund investment decision made by such a manager if the decision has been approved by a majority of those voting in a ballot of the members of the fund; and section 4 does not apply to any statement—

(a) made for the purpose of preparing for or explaining the purpose of such a ballot;

(b) concerning a decision which has been approved by such a ballot.”

This amendment would allow a local government pension fund to act in a way prohibited by clause 1 if the decision to do so is approved by a majority of scheme members, and would prevent statements about or following such a ballot being prohibited by clause 4.

Amendment 19, in clause 17, page 10, line 38, leave out “Scotland”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 18.

Amendment 20, page 11, line 19, leave out “Scotland”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 18.

Amendment 5, in the schedule, page 12, line 21, at end insert—

“3A Section 1 does not apply to—

(a) a registered higher education provider in England, as defined by section 3(10) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017;

(b) an institution within the higher education sector in Wales, as defined by section 91 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;

(c) an institution within the higher education sector in Scotland, as defined by section 56 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992;

(d) a higher education institution in Northern Ireland, as defined by article 30 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1993.”

This amendment would remove universities and other higher education providers from the requirement to act in accordance with clause 1.

Amendment 6, page 13, line 5, at end insert—

“6A Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as it relates to conduct which it is the position of His Majesty’s Government represents a breach of international law.”

This amendment would permit decisions which would otherwise be in breach of clause 1 if they are taken in response to conduct which the Government considers to be a breach of international law.

Amendment 17, page 13, line 5, at end insert—

“6A Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the purpose of the decision is to prevent violations of international law including the deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, the imposition of collective punishment on civilian populations, forced transfer of civilians, and other acts which may constitute war crimes.”

Amendment 22, page 13, line 5, at end insert—

“(2) Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in breaching international law, where that breach of international law is directly related to the decision.”

Amendment 8, page 15, line 22, at end insert “, environmental protection, environmental targets, environmental treaties or environmental law (as defined by the Environment Act 2021).”

This amendment would expand the environmental grounds on which a public body is allowed to make certain economic decisions.

Amendment 9, page 15, line 26, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

“(a) reduces the level of environmental protection, including in a country or territory other than the United Kingdom, or

(b) caused, or had the potential to cause, harm to the natural environment, including the life and health of—

(i) plants, wild animals and other living organisms,

(ii) their habitats, or

(iii) land (except buildings or other structures), air and water,

and the natural systems, cycles and processes through which they interact.”

This amendment extends the definition of environment misconduct to include damage regardless of whether it is legal or illegal, and to include species, habitats and the natural world.

Amendment 10, page 15, line 29, at end insert “and the welfare of animals”

This amendment would add conduct causing, or having the potential to cause, significant harm to the welfare of animals to the types of conduct which constitute environmental misconduct and to which regard may therefore be had without contravening section 1.

Amendment 11, page 15, line 29, at end insert—

“(4) The conduct referenced in sub-paragraph (3) includes conduct which amounts to—

(a) an offence under section 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 or 13 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and

(b) an infringement or contravention of any of the requirements or prohibitions in Schedule 1 of the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015.”

This amendment would clarify the meaning of “welfare of animals” for the purpose of Amendment 10.

Amendment 15, page 15, line 29, at end insert—

“11 Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as it relates to the use of fossil fuels.”

This amendment would allow for a public body to consider the use of fossil fuels when taking certain economic decisions.

Amendment 23, page 15, line 29, at end insert—

“11 Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in the crime of genocide as determined under international law, where that crime of genocide is directly related to the decision.”

Amendment 24, page 15, line 29, at end insert—

“11 Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in the crime of ethnic cleansing as determined under international law, where that ethnic cleansing is directly related to the decision.”

Amendment 25, page 15, line 29, at end insert—

“11 Section 1 does not prevent regard to a consideration so far as the decision-maker reasonably considers it relevant to whether the decision (or anything done further to it) would give financial, economic, or other reward to a party that has engaged in the crime of apartheid as determined under international law, where that crime of apartheid is directly related to the decision.”

I call Anum Qaisar.

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I beg the hon. Member’s pardon—Chris Stephens.

[Chris Stephens]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I forgive you for that after your excellent address to the all-party parliamentary group on Cyprus last night; it was an excellent event.

I rise to speak to the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar). I indicate now that I will be looking to divide the House on amendment 28, to which I will confine most of my remarks. However, many in this House are deeply disappointed at what the Government are doing in proceeding with this Bill. As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) said on Monday,

“now is not the time.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 611.]

Let me say at the outset that we all condemn the killing of innocent civilians. We do condemn Hamas and their acts of terror on 7 October, and Hamas must release all hostages. We must equally recognise that there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and it is legitimate to question the actions of the Israeli Government. It is perfectly legitimate to call for a ceasefire to address that crisis and let humanitarian aid flow in to save the lives of innocent Palestinian people.

There are vastly more people around these islands who are perplexed by the Government’s playing party political games when the middle east is in crisis and the rest of the world fears the start of an even broader conflict. This is not the time to seek electoral advantage through tripping up political opponents during semantic exchanges, exploiting small differences in language to pretend there is a vast gulf between positions, or selling that to the electorate as “one party good, all other parties bad.”

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on the way he is making his comments. Does he agree that it is positively dangerous to do what this Government are doing when we see the huge rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia? Just now, our communities need us in Parliament to be showing a lead and to be united on this, and not to do something that is so divisive and so deliberately provocative and deeply damaging to the unity of our communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I hope that those on the Government Benches listened to her. Many of us have that real fear. This is not the occasion to push forward this legislation. Polarisation is a game that has long been played by the Government, but this is not a game; this is real life, or the loss of it, and such cynicism has no place here. In Israel and Palestine, we have two peoples who feel that they are under existential threat from the other. Almost everyone understands that, and we have all been trying to find solutions that will bring peace to that region. Ringfencing the interests of one group by diminishing the rights of the other can never yield a long-term solution to the entrenched problems in the middle east; it simply exacerbates the tension between the two. The very real fear, which the hon. Member has just expressed, is that it forces people into one camp or the other, it feeds hatred and it fuels the evil that is antisemitism.

It is not too late to withdraw the Bill. If the Government are determined to proceed with it, I hope they listen to the advice from both sides of the House, in particular from Government Back Benchers, and amend the clauses that will otherwise further inflame the divisions that the Government claim they are trying to heal. As with most conflicts, verbal and military, there tends to be collateral damage that has either not been fully anticipated or where the perpetrator simply does not care about the consequences. In their assumed aim of defending the rights of Israel, the Government are attacking the rights of many sectors of our own society, ranging from the legislative and judicial rights of the devolved Parliaments to the democratic rights of elected local authorities, and cutting a swathe through the individual human rights of all people across these islands.

In its long title, the Bill is described as:

“A Bill to make provision to prevent public bodies from being influenced by political or moral disapproval of foreign states when taking certain economic decisions”.

It would appear that public bodies are not fit to make political or moral judgments and, as we will see later, individuals are not fit to make such judgments either. As I said in an earlier debate, the electorate will not miss the irony of a Tory Government presenting themselves as the sole moral arbiter for the whole of these islands.

The pretext for introducing this legislation was an assumed need to respond robustly to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement—or BDS—which advocates a complete boycott of Israel and Israeli people and which suggests that the state of Israel does not even have the right to exist. The Government ignore the fact that, in line with other Governments in Europe and the EU itself, the Scottish Government and the SNP unequivocally condemn and distance themselves from members or affiliates within the BDS movement. Rather than wish the state of Israel to cease to exist, most democratic countries are strong supporters of a two-state solution, with the Government reasserting that position to the House earlier this year, and President Biden reaffirming support only last week. We as a House are generally united in supporting a two-state solution, and to imply otherwise is a red herring and a dangerous distraction to mature debate.

More than 40 Israeli non-governmental organisations have called for this Bill to be rejected, as has the Union of Jewish Students and Yachad, with the latter saying that

“we are unequivocal about the need to protect the right to express differences of opinions, even if they are opinions that we fiercely disagree with”.

Let us listen to them. On the broader issue of human rights at home, let us listen to some other organisations. Amnesty International asserts that the Bill

“would make it almost impossible for public bodies to use their procurement and investment policies to incentivise ethical business conduct that is human rights compliant.”

But we knew that already. Amnesty goes on to say:

“Companies depending on public contracts will feel more confident that their global impacts on human rights and the environment will be irrelevant to their success in tendering processes.”

I see this Bill as a clear incitement to such companies to lessen their commitments to human rights and the environment, as they will no longer need them to gain public contracts. Companies that respect human rights face being undercut by those that knowingly breach international standards with little fear of consequences. What a horrible race to the bottom.

There is a niggling problem here for the Government regarding human rights. There is a global consensus on the human rights standards applicable to companies. The United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights were unanimously endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council, the European Union, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Standards Organisation. The UK was the first country to develop a national action plan to implement those guiding principles, and now we appear to be the first country to renege on those commitments.

The UK is in danger of being a rogue state in this field, going against the tide of international opinion, which considers that public bodies should use procurement and investment policies to incentivise business to be ethical and human rights compliant. I would argue that is in the public interest. Let us consider an example from Amnesty, whereby an NHS body might choose to avoid sourcing medical equipment from certain suppliers, such as Malaysia, Thailand, Pakistan or Mexico, saying that they had been implicated in modern slavery. Those overseas supply companies could take legal action under this legislation on the grounds that the decision makers were influenced by

“political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct”,

and the courts would then have to determine whether the exemption in the Bill for labour-related misconduct applied in that particular case.

Let us imagine that a public body in Scotland decided to stop sourcing beef from a Brazilian meat distribution company whose products had been linked to deforestation of the Amazon. If the proposed law had been in place during the previous Brazil presidency, when exploitation of the Amazon was being actively encouraged, the Brazilian Government or the company whose products were being excluded could have challenged the decision in the High Court on the grounds that it was influenced by

“political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct”.

Since it is unclear whether the environmental misconduct exemption referred to in part 2 of the schedule to the Bill would prevail, the risk attached would have been likely to deter any public body from taking such a decision on environmental grounds. They would have been compelled to be complicit in deforestation.

Liberty and other groups have pointed out that the Bill gives the enforcement authority the power to issue a notice to a public authority requesting an assessment of whether there has, or may be, a breach of the ban or the prohibition on making statements. The Bill gives the enforcement authority the power to impose a compliance notice where they consider a person is likely to contravene the ban—not “has contravened”, but “is likely to contravene”. We are in the realms of Orwell’s thought police or Philip K. Dick’s “The Minority Report”, with precogs catching criminals before they have even committed the crime. The normal police come for someone if they commit a criminal act, but the thought police are different; they act if someone intends to act in some particular way.

Under the Bill, the authorities do not need to demonstrate any proof of intent to publish a particular kind of statement. That is impossible to do in the normal world, so let us just rely on telepathy for finding out someone’s intent. Clause 4 of the Bill would prohibit public bodies and their leaders—such as university vice-chancellors, local council leaders, or even the chief executive of a private company delivering public services—from publishing public statements indicating that they intend to act in a way that would contravene the ban, or that they would, in theory, intend to act that way if not for the ban. A local council could no longer publish statements such as, “Our local council would have boycotted these goods from this state-owned enterprise due to the state’s conduct in relation to this territory, but the law does not permit this, and we intend to comply with the law.” I never expected to say these words, as someone who subscribes to socialist theory, but: we must remove clause 4. I say that just on this occasion. I notice that an amendment to that effect has been tabled.

Liberty has also pointed out that in other jurisdictions, anti-boycott laws have had a severe impact on freedom of expression. In one case in the US, a speech pathologist in Texas lost her school contract because she declined to sign an agreement promising not to boycott Israel on the basis of a similar anti-boycott law. In another, a dermatologist was withheld payment for a lecture for failing to agree not to boycott Israel. US campaigners have further warned that anti-boycott legislation, once enacted, is liable to be extended to a plethora of issues—from fossil fuels to gun control. I fear we are looking at another damaging cultural import from the United States of America.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I have heard the Secretary of State say several times that the Conservatives are in favour of devolution, so should they not be required to seek consent from the Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland before they proceed?

[Chris Stephens]

My hon. Friend is correct that they should. I suspect they will not receive it from either the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Senedd, for many reasons. As he says, there is clearly an impact on devolution.

Devolution was approved overwhelmingly by the people of Scotland, and any erosion of it is strongly opposed by most, but not all, parties in that Parliament. I will let Members guess which party is least protective of Scotland’s interests. Scotland’s current legislative powers are guarded jealously, and there is strong demand for many—possibly all—reserved powers to be transferred to Scottish control. That is not surprising.

I and others will continue to explore the Bill’s deficiencies again today, pointing out its many contradictions.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his excellent speech. He has given very good democratic, social and moral reasons for why the Bill is in deep defect. Does he not think a better process would be for the Secretary of State now to withdraw the Bill altogether?

[Chris Stephens]

That would be very helpful indeed. The right hon. Gentleman is right. Those of us who have tabled amendments are trying to clean up a dog’s breakfast, which is very difficult. We are all trying to make the Bill a little better but, as my good friend says, the ultimate solution would be to withdraw it entirely.

I have highlighted the Bill’s contradictions, counter-productiveness and profound consequences, and I will be seeking to divide the House on amendment 28. I look forward to hearing other Members pursue their amendments.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I would like to speak against all the amendments and new clauses before us today and in support of the Bill as currently drafted.

We need this Bill. I thank the Government for including it in the Conservative manifesto and taking it forward, and I urge the whole House to back the Bill and reject the amendments. This, of all times, is a time to stand with the Jewish community, following the worst attack on Jewish people since the holocaust.

BDS has been identified in a succession of studies as driving a rise in antisemitism. By singling out the world’s only Jewish state for criticism, above and beyond that directed at any other country in similar circumstances, I believe BDS campaigns fall within the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. The French supreme court has ruled that BDS is discriminatory, and the German Parliament views the movement as antisemitic.

Since the shocking Hamas terror attacks, we have witnessed deeply disturbing scenes on our TV screens and in our streets. These include sickening so-called celebrations of the horrific murders in southern Israel, and the anti-Jewish racism and hatred visible at successive protests on the streets of our capital city. At a time like this, when Jewish people are in fear for their friends and relatives in Israel, it is appalling to compound their anxiety and distress with hate-filled banners and chants at such protests. I find it deeply depressing that “Jihad! Jihad!” has been shouted with impunity on the streets of our city, and that ISIS flags have been on blatant display.

The dramatic rise in antisemitic incidents is wholly unacceptable, and it shows us that we need campaigns to bring communities together, not drive them apart. There can be no doubt that BDS is absolutely focused on division, not unity. The BDS movement deplores co-existence and peacebuilding initiatives. For example, it has condemned co-operation between Israeli and Palestinian universities. The movement’s founder, Omar Barghouti, has repeatedly expressed his opposition to Israel’s right to exist.

As we go into the voting Lobbies this evening, we are in a situation where the question to be asked of all of us is: “Which side are you on?”. I make it clear that I strongly support the right of Israel to defend its land and its citizens from terrorist attack.

Of course, we all worry about the plight of innocent Gazans put in harm’s way by Hamas, who brutalise them and deliberately use them as human shields. Of course, we need to get supplies to civilians, so long as there is confidence that they cannot be diverted or misused by terrorists. We must always remember that it is Hamas who have endangered the people of Gaza. Hamas are the people who have caused the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

I am in no doubt that the Israeli Defence Forces are making, and will continue to make, the greatest efforts possible to prevent civilian loss of life. Israel is one of the most democratic countries in the world, and it respects the rule of law. I am certain that its democratic and legal institutions will hold its armed forces rigorously to account. Those on the Labour Benches who line up to casually, and wrongly, accuse Israel of war crimes should check their facts, not rush to judgment.

We need our local authorities to concentrate on delivering services, not on conducting their own trade and foreign policy. We need campaigns that promote peaceful progress towards a two-state solution, not bitterness and exclusion. We need to take all possible action against the antisemitism that we have seen increase so shockingly in recent days. We need this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate for the thought and care that they have given to the legislation before us. I appreciate that we are debating these measures at a sensitive time and that, across the House, people will place different emphases on aspects of the legislation and the broader issues with which it deals.

Let me be clear: I have respect for everyone who has spoken and the arguments that they have made. Where there is disagreement, it is in the context of everyone in this House being united in their horror of terrorism, their desire for peace and their belief in a two-state solution.

We are seeking in the Bill to give effect to a manifesto commitment, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) has just pointed out. The Bill was introduced earlier this year. Indeed, it completed its Committee stage under the careful and thoughtful stewardship of the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), with contributions from all sides of merit, thought and care.

Of course, those debates took place before the horrific events of 7 October, to which so many colleagues in this debate have referred. It is important to remember—I do not think that anyone in the House can forget—that on 7 October we saw the largest loss of Jewish life since the holocaust. That atrocity was perpetrated by terrorists from Hamas whose aim is very clear and very simple: the elimination of the Jewish state, the elimination of Jewish lives. Whatever the background beliefs or origin of those Jewish lives, they were to be exterminated.

More than 200 hostages are still being held by Hamas in Gaza. Across the House, we grieve for them and their families. I thank in particular the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), with whom I have been in touch, who have been working very hard to ensure that their constituents are released and brought home. I also thank the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), who joined me and many Members from all parties at a vigil in Trafalgar Square on Sunday to call for the return of those hostages.

We also sympathise across the House with the innocent people of Gaza, and with all those Palestinian people who have suffered. We recognise that many of the innocent people in Gaza are hostages too. They are hostages of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the other terrorist organisations that operate within that territory. It is vital at all times that we draw a distinction between those who suffer in Gaza and those who are perpetrating suffering in the name of terrorism.

I am very conscious that we are debating these issues against that backdrop, but it is important that we look at the principles behind the Bill. I also thank our friend, the ambassador of the state of Israel, who is here in the Gallery to listen to our considerations. She and other ambassadors have been working with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to ensure that every hostage is released back to their Jewish home with their family.

It is important to recognise what the Bill does not do. A number of legitimate concerns were expressed that actually do not reflect what is in the Bill and what the Bill is intended to achieve. The Bill does not prevent any individual from articulating their support for the BDS campaign, or indeed any particular policy that the BDS campaign puts forward. It simply prevents public bodies and public money being used to advance that case. Any of us as individuals has a total right to freedom of speech. However offensive or difficult some of the words that some utter might be, free speech is not affected by the Bill.

The Bill also does not prevent human rights considerations from being taken into account by local authorities. The Bill makes it clear that legitimate human rights considerations, provided that they are non-country-specific, should be taken into account. I note the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) about animal welfare. If specific human rights considerations need to be added to the Bill, we will consider that in the Lords. I also note the comments made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). We want to ensure that there is a robust way of ensuring that local authorities can uphold human rights on a non-country-specific basis.

I noted some of the concerns expressed about the impact on the local government pension scheme. Let me stress again that there is no damage to the fiduciary duty that trustees of the scheme will have to uphold in ensuring that they secure the best value on their investments for their members. What the Bill does do is deal with the broad principle that foreign policy should be reserved to this House. It is important to stress that when other public bodies take a stand on foreign policy, they risk vitiating the power of both the Government and the House to achieve goals for the benefit of the United Kingdom and risk creating specific community tensions.

Talking of specific community tensions takes us, of course, to the specific menace that is the BDS movement. It is of course possible for local government to consider adopting boycotts in a variety of ways, but the truth is that if we look at local government and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) pointed out, at the devolved Administrations, the only country that has been singled out so far for boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns has been Israel. Let us not hide from that fact.

The reason for that is that the BDS campaign is in itself antisemitic. It is not exercising disapproval of some particular foreign policy or domestic policy decision of the state of Israel; it is saying that Israel should not exist. It is instructive, though not easy, to look at the communications that the BDS movement has issued on social media since 7 October—not one word of sympathy for the Israeli people in their suffering. Indeed, what it has said on social media, when talking of those deaths, is that “their blood”—the blood of the Jewish people; the Israeli people killed—

“is on the hands of the Israeli government.”

The BDS campaign has said that the “root cause” of this violence—the deaths on 7 October—

“must be acknowledged…Israel as the occupier.”

The BDS movement has cited a variety of politicians as what they call “partners in genocide”: Rishi Sunak, Joe Biden, Olaf Scholz and Ursula von der Leyen. Of course, the BDS campaign also continues to repeat the lie—the blood libel—that it was the Israeli Defence Forces who were responsible for the tragic loss of life at the Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza. That is what we are dealing with, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for making clear the horror that he and so many of us hold for the BDS movement.

There is an argument that perhaps this Bill is divisive and it is not wanted, particularly by many voices in the Jewish community. There are some voices in the Jewish community who have concerns, and we have listened to them, but the representative bodies that speak for Britain’s Jewish community are united in supporting this Bill. They include the Board of Deputies, which contains representatives of every Jewish constituency, Jewish organisation and every Jewish community, be it secular or religious, and the Jewish Leadership Council, which contains representatives of every political and faith tradition within the Jewish community. We have heard reference made to the increase we have seen—it is horrific to think about it—in antisemitic incidents in recent weeks. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) made reference to the Community Security Trust. I have been in contact with it this afternoon and it sent me this message:

“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.”

So we respect the diversity of voices, but when we have such unity from those who speak for the Jewish community—indeed, the Jewish communities—of the UK, when they are so clear that this legislation is in the interests of community cohesion, fighting antisemitism and making the UK a safe house for everyone, we should treat their words with respect.

The point has been made that the specific mention in the Bill of Israel could perhaps, in some cases, engender a greater degree of polarisation and antisemitism. I know that the people who make that argument make it sincerely, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) pointed out, sometimes we just have to stand up for what is right. If there are people who are provoked as a result of that, it is regrettable but we should not shy away from telling the truth. We should not shy away from saying that what has been going on with Gaza’s genocidal campaign against the Jewish people is something that we as a country need to stand against. When the BDS campaign has in its leadership the leaders of Hamas, we need to be clear about this evil and this menace. That is not just my argument; it is also the argument of the Jewish community organisations that I cited earlier, including the Jewish Leadership Council. In its submission to the Committee considering this Bill, it said:

“The inclusion of clause 3(7) recognises this unique nature of the BDS campaign against Israel”.

It stated its belief that if that provision were excised, as one amendment seeks to achieve,

“the very purpose of the bill would be undermined. Such a change would…convert a bill aiming to prevent anti-Israel BDS campaigns from abusing our public bodies into a tool to facilitate it.”

It is debatable, of course, whether this is the right way forward—the Jewish Leadership Council is very clear that it is—but I simply ask: after everything we have seen in the past three weeks, if this House were now to remove a specific protection for the state of Israel at this time, what message would it send? I submit to every Member of this House that we should listen to the Jewish community and the clarity with which they speak.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tone he has adopted so far, as it is important that we adopt the correct tone in this debate. Does he recognise the concerns that not just Israel is mentioned in the clause? This is also about why the Government have included the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights. That has also aroused some comment, debate and criticism.

[Michael Gove]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point and appreciate the concerns that he articulates, which are shared by a number of people, but the way in which the Bill is designed makes it clear that there is a separation between Israel, the OPTs and the Golan Heights. As the Jewish Leadership Council pointed out in its evidence to the Committee on which the hon. Gentleman served with distinction:

“This clause recognises this distinction”—

it absolutely does—

“and closes a loophole to ensure public bodies cannot remain tools of the BDS movement against Israel.”

It is also the case that, by making that distinction, the clause—and the Bill overall—reserves to the UK Government the role of maintaining, as we do, our absolute commitment to a two-state solution. As framed, then, the Bill is absolutely not in breach of international law. It enables the UK Government to speak with one voice on behalf of the entire United Kingdom in our determination to secure a two-state solution, however distant that prospect may be at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Does Chris Stephens wish to press new clause 1 to a Division?

[Chris Stephens]

No, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

Exceptions

Amendment proposed: 14, page 2, line 17, leave out subsections (2) and (3).—(Angela Rayner.)

This amendment would remove provisions allowing Ministers to amend the Schedule, via regulations, to add a description of decision or consideration, or amend or remove considerations added under previous regulations.

Question put, That the amendment be made.