Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Steve McCabe Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I had been looking forward to this legislation. As the chair of Labour Friends of Israel, I am against efforts to destabilise, delegitimise and destroy Israel, the world’s only Jewish state. The purpose of the BDS movement, with its talk of apartheid, genocide and ghettos, is to demonise and, ultimately, destroy Israel. I had hoped we might see a simple Bill designed to restrain the ambitions of BDS, with its single target, the state of Israel. Boycotts are not new for Jews. On 1 April this year, we marked the 90th anniversary of the Nazis’ first nationwide action against the Jews, a boycott targeting Jewish businesses and professionals. There is a long, dark history of boycotts directed against Jewish people. For the world’s only Jewish state to be targeted in this way shows complete indifference to that history and a single-minded determination to destroy Israel’s right to exist.

The effect of BDS is felt not only in Israel. A 2019 Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Public Diplomacy report concluded that the victims of BDS include Jews in the diaspora. Let us think what it means to be Jewish in Britain today. There is an understandable affinity between Israel and Jews in this country, but every day Jewish students confront obsessive campaigns for an academic boycott of Israeli universities. BDS seeks to prevent Israeli artists, actors and musicians from performing in Britain. It wants libraries to remove Israeli authors and to “no-platform” Israeli speakers.

Supporters of BDS often seek to draw a comparison with South Africa. The measures taken at that time were designed to end apartheid and bring about the democratic state that we see today. But—here I agree with the Secretary of State—BDS does not support a two-state solution, advocate peace negotiations or seek to bring communities together. To be fair to its leader, Omar Barghouti, he is clear that he opposes a Jewish state in any part of what he calls Palestine. We all know what the chant “From the river to the sea” actually means. BDS is a policy designed to end Israel’s existence. The movement opposes the idea of normalisation; in fact, normalisation has become a pejorative term in relation to Israel and Palestine thanks to the efforts of such movements.

Of course, BDS is not without success: a vociferous campaign against SodaStream led to the closure of a plant in the west bank and the loss of 600 Palestinian jobs. BDS puts at risk the 10,000 UK businesses that have import-export arrangements. The UK is Israel’s second largest trading partner, with a relationship worth about £7 billion. Israeli companies provide one in seven NHS drugs, estimated to save us around £3 billion per year. As we have heard, we are negotiating a new free trade arrangement, which will vastly improve benefits for both countries. Our security arrangements help to save thousands of lives and regularly help to foil terrorist attacks in the UK, yet BDS wants to end military co-operation.

It is against that background that I had hoped to welcome this legislation; instead, we get a dog’s dinner—a Bill that in its present form can serve only to guarantee conflict between the Government, local authorities and other public bodies, and will inevitably result in endless legal challenges. It seeks to limit the freedom for councils and other public bodies to speak out in the face of obvious injustice. Far from not singling out Israel—a key demand of many Jewish and anti-BDS groups—specific attention is drawn to Israel in the Bill.

This is a Bill that has lost focus. Its scattergun approach and willingness to confuse legitimate political protest with what should be simple powers to restrict the demands associated with the BDS movement will provide endless publicity opportunities for Israel’s enemies. It is unworkable in its current form. If there is to be any hope of the Bill becoming a reasonable, practical measure, it requires substantial improvement. I hope that the Secretary of State will not play party or petty politics but seek to build consensus with people across the House who are willing to work together on measures designed to rid us of the malign influence of the BDS movement.

At the same time, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) that, although I am full of admiration for her good intentions and acknowledge that the reasoned amendment has been framed in response to the mess before us, I am not entirely sure that it cuts mustard either. Nevertheless, in deference to her good intentions, I will support the amendment tonight. If I am fortunate enough to serve on the Bill Committee, I hope we can find common ground to create workable legislation to tackle the folly of BDS ambitions and its one and only target. I hope we can achieve that without imposing ludicrous restrictions on legitimate political activities, or the freedom of speech of local government and those who represent public bodies. Having waited so long, tonight is a tremendous disappointment for me, but there is still time to put things right. I urge Ministers not to ignore the opportunity.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (First sitting)

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th September 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)]

I have also been on a Conservative Friends of Israel trip, James Gurd is a friend of mine, and I used to work at the Jewish Leadership Council.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I am the parliamentary chair of Labour Friends of Israel. It is a non-pecuniary position, but I have also been to Israel with Labour Friends of Israel.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

As per my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I have been on a trip to Israel funded by Conservative Friends of Israel, and James Gurd is personally known to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you. I have registered two other Members as signalling that they would like to ask questions. Have I missed anybody? No. In which case, I call Steve McCabe.

[Steve McCabe]

Q It has been suggested that there may be some confusion or a discrepancy between the schedule in the Bill that is designed to exclude pension schemes and clause 12, which deals specifically with the local government pension scheme. Do you regard that as a discrepancy, and what implications do you think it might have?

Jo Donnelly: I think it is just a feature of how the law has to be drafted in order to exclude all pension schemes except the local government pension scheme, because the law applies to bodies under section 6 of the Human Rights Act, which includes education institutions such as universities, and obviously there is a pension scheme associated with universities. The law needs to exclude those pension schemes but specifically include the LGPS. I just read this as the best way that the drafters have found to make that clear, so I do not see it as a problem; it is just that the way in which the drafting has to work is sometimes a little clunky.

[Steve McCabe]

Q Is it a legitimate course of action to treat pension schemes differently?

Jon Richards: This is one for me, isn’t it? We would prefer it if the local government pension scheme was not subject to this Bill, as that interferes with our fiduciary duties.

[The Chair]

I think this will be the last question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q And you do not have any concerns that this Bill could have a negative impact on communities within the UK?

Russell Langer: I think it will have a positive impact on communities here in the UK. Unfortunately, what we see here in the UK—it happens with other foreign issues, but it happens specifically with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—is that we see a foreign conflict affecting intercommunity relations here in the UK. Worst of all, we then see public bodies—it is a minority, but some public bodies—seeking to then get involved in that debate and make those tensions worse, when I think they should be getting involved to improve the situation. I completely agree with you, but I think I come to a different point.

Daniel Sugarman: It will certainly make things better for Jewish communities—particularly small Jewish communities—who have been in positions where they sometimes feel that, unless they vocally criticise Israel, as Jews, they will not get a hearing. I admit, I do not have a huge amount of sympathy for people who might feel that they no longer have the means to make such Jewish communities feel uncomfortable.

[Steve McCabe]

Q Good morning. When I first heard about the Government’s intentions to legislate in this area, I understood it to be legislation to prevent public bodies from boycotting the state of Israel, which I welcomed. I just wonder whether you think that the Government have made life easier or more difficult for themselves by extending the range and scope of the Bill, or whether it would have been better to have concentrated on preventing the boycott of the state of Israel.

Daniel Sugarman: That is an excellent point, but I think that, had the Government focused specifically on Israel, and not on anything else, we would have seen some of the same people who are raising questions in general—well-meaning questions as to why Israel is singled out specifically in the Bill—and I think that the questions as to why only Israel was being focused on would have been 1,000 times louder. I think it makes sense that the Government have widened the scope for this, while singling out Israel within the wider Bill.

Russell Langer: I would add that part of our reasoning to believe that public bodies should not be boycotting Israel is that it contravenes UK Government policy, and that it is a foreign-policy issue being taken up by public bodies. Therefore, I can understand the wider scope to tie that in to that national picture of public bodies not taking foreign-policy decisions contrary to national Government.

[The Chair]

Are there any further lines of questioning? We have time available if anybody wishes to pursue anything. In that case, although we did not take up a lot of your time, I think it gave members of the Committee an opportunity to air some of the points of principle as they presented, and to look at alternative points of view on. That has been really helpful, and, of course, you bring a perspective to this that is very focused on one specific community, but that is as it should be. We are very grateful for the light you have been able to shine on some of those difficult issues, which I know people are trying to cope with by being even-handed but also by operating on good, solid principles. Thank you very much indeed.

Russell Langer: Thank you very much for inviting us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

Okay.

[Steve McCabe]

Q As I understand it, any financial penalties for a local authority that falls foul of this legislation will fall on the council, which means that they will fall on the council tax payer. Do you think that that is fair? Is that likely to deter highly motivated individuals or groups?

Councillor Deering: I think it is my turn to go first, isn’t it? Do I think it is fair? That is a very good question. I think ultimately it is the decision that Parliament will make on this on this Bill. As a broad matter of principle, I do not think it is inappropriate that if a standard is set and there is a failure to meet the standard, some consequence will follow, but it is for Parliament to determine quite what that standard will be and quite what the consequence will be. As a principle, I do not think we would have any difficulty with that. On the second part of your one question, I would not think that this issue would deter people from coming into public life in local government. That would be my personal view.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (Third sitting)

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 7th September 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Felicity Buchan]

Q I have one quick follow-up question. There has been a lot of talk about clause 4, which prohibits statements of intent to boycott. Would you agree that we need clause 4, because a statement of intent sows community division without achieving anything?

Melanie Phillips: Yes. A statement of intent is clearly no more or less than that, but the evil of a statement of intent is that it is a statement of delegitimisation—a statement that Israel is uniquely evil, that it uniquely requires this kind of approach. Therefore, any Jewish person in Britain who supports Israel is deemed to be fair game, and any Jew is deemed to be fair game because people assume, rightly or wrongly, that they identify with Israel.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Q I understood the Bill to be largely about the Conservative party meeting its manifesto promise to address BDS—in fact, the Prime Minister restated that recently. If that is the main purpose of the Bill—and I have to say I am in favour of that—do you think we need the exemption that means that Israel and the Palestinian territories are the only places that the Secretary of State cannot regulate for? Does it add anything extra to the Bill?

Melanie Phillips: I think there is no contradiction between the two. As you say, the Bill is the fulfilment of a manifesto commitment. The manifesto commitment is a broad one, and the Bill is a broad one, as you heard from your previous witnesses. There are exemptions of different kinds, and the particular exemption you are talking about, which singles out Israel, is done for a particular reason: in a Bill that deals generally with boycotts, there is one boycott that stands out as unique, which is the boycott movement against Israel. It has characteristics that do not apply to any other action taken against any other country, group or cause. In the view of the Government, and I agree with this view, it is a uniquely evil impulse, designed uniquely to destroy Israel as the Jewish state—as the Jewish homeland—and with malign potential repercussions on the Jewish community. Consequently, because it is a unique situation, it requires a specific exemption, as it is so bad that it cannot be ever thought that it could ever happen.

[Wayne David]

Q Could I say that I have regularly, over many, many years, read your excellent articles in The Times and indeed elsewhere. I understand that you feel very strongly about this issue, and I personally have gone on record many times as being implacably opposed to the BDS movement. However, one worry I have is that much of the mechanism in the Bill requires exemptions, and the Government have indicated that there will be some exemptions, but they have not mentioned China, and I do not think they will mention China. Yet there is tremendous concern among the Uyghurs, for example, as we have heard in this Committee, about the possible curtailment of action at a community level against China. Is that a concern you share?

Melanie Phillips: I am certainly concerned about China. And, by the way, thank you very much for the compliment—flattery will get you everywhere. I am concerned about China, and I would like and prefer our Government to take a stronger view about China—a stronger approach to China. But that is not really the point at issue here; the point at issue here is that it is for the Government to determine foreign policy—I may disagree with that policy, but it is for the Government to determine it. If local authorities or public bodies—bodies taking public money—go off on a frolic of their own and boycott China, Saudi Arabia or whoever, you have a kind of anarchy, and you cannot have that. To me, that is the issue.

As I understand it from what Ministers have said and from my reading of the Bill and these exemptions—obviously, you realise I am not a lawyer—the Bill allows public bodies who take a view that the procurement decision they are being asked to take would involve the use of Uyghur slave labour in China to use the exemptions to not go down that procurement road. But the exemptions are limited to a number of areas that the Government have deemed to be on the right side of the line when it comes to saying that it is for the Government of the day to determine foreign policy, which I think is a sensible rule for the Government of the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Before I ask you to respond, I will bring in Steve McCabe and, with your forbearance, ask you to perhaps answer both questions together.

[Steve McCabe]

I think my question was the same. You said that the Bill would benefit from amendment. I wondered what you had in mind.

Melanie Phillips: As I have said before, I am not a lawyer, and I really would not presume to say what amendments there should be. I would suggest that all Bills, as I am sure you know better than I do, are susceptible to amendment and would benefit from amendment. When I wrote what I wrote, I was really reflecting that I had seen various people make various observations about things they thought were not right. I do not know whether that is right or not, but I am absolutely sure that there is scope for amendment. Consequently, I would hope that the Bill would be amended for the better. That was really the only thing I was trying to get at.

[The Chair]

Thank you. I would like to thank the witness for her characteristically forthright responses, which have been very helpful to the Committee. I would also say that, in my experience—I am sure you share it—it is as well to take compliments wherever you can get them. With that, thank you very much for your attendance. We are very grateful.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jacob Young.)

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th September 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Ms Qaisar]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George.

Antisemitism is on the rise across the UK and the globe. It is a disgusting stain on society, and something must be done to eradicate it completely. There must be strong and meaningful legislation to tackle it so that Jewish people feel and are safe. That is something that I and my SNP colleagues want to see, but frankly it is also something that people across the House want to see. Sadly, however, the Bill is not an appropriate approach.

Last week we heard from Yasmine Ahmed, the UK director of Human Rights Watch, who said:

“I have never read a piece of legislation that is as badly worded as this. It is ambiguous and runs a coach and horses completely through ESG responsibilities and business and human rights responsibilities. I think it is a very pernicious and worrying piece of legislation”.––[Official Report, Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2023; c. 86, Q124.]

The Bill is in need of significant amendment to tackle some of the fundamental flaws in its current form. Some clauses need to be scrapped altogether. The language in clause 1 creates ambiguities around the objectives of the Bill; it is so poorly drafted that it is difficult to determine what the Bill seeks to accomplish. Of particular concern is the phrasing relating to “a territorial consideration” in clause 1(2). As drafted, it could be interpreted in such a way as to focus the Bill solely on limiting disagreements among decision makers on territorial matters, rather than on the foreign and domestic actions of foreign states. That means that if a decision maker were to make an investment or procurement decision based solely on the domestic actions of the foreign state that did not relate to a territorial issue, the view could be taken that it was not covered by the Bill.

In written and oral evidence, Richard Hermer KC explained that if a decision maker refused to buy goods from China based only on its track record on human rights, they would not be covered by the Bill. If, however, the same person refused to buy goods from China because of its forced labour impacting cotton in Xinjiang, that decision would be covered by the scope of this Bill. That interpretation of clause 1 creates obvious issues around the Bill’s applicability. We therefore ask the Government to accept amendment 22.

Clause 1 also seeks fundamentally to reduce the autonomy of local councils and the devolved nations to take a stance on human rights matters. The measures that seek to remove the ability of local government to take a stance based on the political and moral actions of a foreign state mark a dangerous step in reducing autonomy to speak out in support of human rights. Political discourse in debates over foreign policy matters to everyone. It is legislated here in Westminster, but it enriches society when people are involved in the discussions. Central Government sit upon policy, legislation and agenda, but it is a cornerstone of democracy that people at a localised level be able to have discussion and debate around human rights, which is inevitably linked to foreign policy.

I am not calling for foreign policy to be set by local government, but as a society we benefit when local government makes decisions based on human rights. We saw that in the 1980s, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West and I brought up repeatedly last week. In 1981, Glasgow City Council stood up against apartheid in South Africa. Glasgow was the first city in the world to award Nelson Mandela the freedom of the city. Five years later, St George’s Place in the city centre was renamed Nelson Mandela Place. In 1993, Nelson Mandela visited Glasgow. In the city chambers, he proclaimed:

“While we were physically denied our freedom in the country of our birth, a city 6,000 miles away, and as renowned as Glasgow, refused to accept the legitimacy of the apartheid system, and declared us to be free.”

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

As a Scot, I am very proud of the actions of Labour-led Glasgow City Council in changing the name of St George’s Place and in being the first city to give Nelson Mandela freedom of the city. I have looked at the Bill, and I cannot see anything in it that would have prevented Glasgow City Council from doing that; I agree that there are things in it that have a chilling effect on local government and public institutions, but I am not quite clear how relevant the hon. Lady’s reference to the Bill is.

[Ms Qaisar]

Essentially, I want to talk about the impact that a local government can have when people at a localised level can outline how they feel about human rights records. This Government should take heed of that, because at that time it was Thatcher’s Government who imposed sanctions on apartheid South Africa and maintained close links with political leaders in apartheid South Africa.

I have tabled a number of amendments to clause 1. I have spoken at length about amendment 22. Amendment 31 is intended to probe the use of a subjective rather than objective test to establish whether a decision maker has contravened clause 1. In reality, there are so many amendments that could be made to clause 1. That is not just my view; we heard it from numerous witnesses during our evidence sessions last week and from multiple organisations that have submitted written evidence. The Minister should really go back and start from scratch.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

I will make just a short contribution, if I may. I associate myself with the comments of our shadow Minister. The matters covered by the Bill relate to issues of fundamental importance: the interpretation of UK foreign policy and the ability of public bodies to respond. We live in uncertain times, and the UK’s position as an influential country on the world’s stage will understandably need to change in response to events in many areas of instability. In those circumstances, it would be fundamentally wrong for Ministers to reserve to themselves the power to amend the schedule in the Bill without returning to Parliament and giving MPs and, indeed, interested parties the opportunity to scrutinise and, where necessary, object to it. That is why I support amendment 4.

[Steve McCabe]

I will speak briefly about subsection (7), and in particular about amendments 5 and 6, tabled by my colleagues. As I understand it—

[The Chair]

Order. To be helpful, they come later.

[Steve McCabe]

I have jumped the gun—how unusual!

[The Chair]

By all means continue, if you have something further to say.

[Steve McCabe]

No, I think I will wait. Thank you, Sir George.

[Felicity Buchan]

Amendment 4 would remove the power granted to the Secretary of State to amend the schedule so as to make exemptions to the ban for certain bodies and functions and certain types of considerations, and to amend or remove regulations made under those powers.

The power is necessary to ensure that the ban can evolve over time and operate as intended. The Bill rightly applies to the full range of public authorities. That is necessary to ensure that we have a consistent approach to foreign policy and to stop public authorities being distracted from their core duties by divisive debates and policies. In the event that the ban has unintended consequences for a public authority and impacts on its ability to deliver its core functions, however, this power will allow the Secretary of State to exempt the body, or a function of that body, from the ban via a statutory instrument. The exercise of the power will be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses.

The power will also allow the Secretary of State to exempt certain types of considerations from the ban. That may be necessary if the Secretary of State needs to react quickly to international events. In the drafting of this legislation, my officials have been careful to ensure that the Bill applies only to appropriate bodies and types of considerations. However, the Government may also decide that a certain consideration should be made exempt from the ban so that the Bill can operate as intended. The Secretary of State requires the power so that he can respond effectively to potential unintended consequences that the Bill might have on a public authority without the need for primary legislation. If that had to be done through primary legislation, a public authority might have its ability to carry out public functions hindered for an extended period. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Nottingham North to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe]

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly about all three paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of clause 3(7). It is one of the more contentious parts of the Bill. I am not sure that I doubt the Government’s good intentions over it, but I doubt whether it will have the effect that the Government seek. If I can echo what the hon. Member for Harrow East suggested, for slightly different reasons, I also think it may have unintended consequences.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th September 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Stephens]

I am afraid we are not convinced by the Minister’s reply, and we will push some amendments to a vote. The amendments themselves refer to international law. Indeed, the Labour party’s amendment 14 defines genocide as having the same meaning as described under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, so that should allay some of the fears voiced by Government Members. For completeness and tidiness, I will push amendments 18, 20 and 21 to a vote and I will yield amendment 19—

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I have an absolutely simple question. I do not know whether the hon. Member knows the answer, but I have been wondering about this. I do not think any of us here would object to the idea of having some genocide provision, and I am conscious that my colleagues have referred to the International Criminal Court. Does the hon. Member know whether the situation affecting the Uyghurs at the present time would be caught by that provision?

--- Later in debate ---

to understand what the Scottish Government might choose to do in the context of independence if they had the power to have particular international procurement policies. That is epitomised by their current work on producing a series of papers that look at the detail of what an independent Scotland might look like. Will the Bill hamper those papers, Minister? Clause 4 is simply unworkable and should be removed from the Bill in its entirety.

[Steve McCabe]

I have to say that I agree with that last comment—I think clause 4 is unworkable, and it adds nothing to the Bill. It is a bit like clause 3(7). If anything, it undermines some of the intentions behind the Bill. Not surprisingly, it has been referred to as a gagging clause. It is virtually Kafkaesque, because it is coming a bit close to thought control. We are asked to accept that a person is not only prevented from doing something that contravenes clause 1 but that they are to be prevented from saying that, if it were perfectly legal to do so, they would want to do it. It would appear that they are not allowed to think that either. As I understand it, the Government say that the justification—this is an honourable aim—is that they are trying to protect community cohesion.

I ask hon. Members to pause for a second and work out how many people they know, and what institutions, would argue that community cohesion is being protected and safeguarded by these measures. The clause might prevent a person from saying that they intend to contravene clause 1 or that they would implement decisions that would, effectively, contravene clause 1 if it were legal to do, but it does not prevent them from saying a whole series of other abusive and offensive things about the state of Israel or anywhere else. In fact, it gives them a licence to say all those other things, and there is not a thing that can be done about it, provided they stay within the limits of existing law. I cannot see how this restriction is going to protect community cohesion. It is likely to have the opposite effect and to give those who do not share the Minister’s objectives on BDS a licence to look for ways to be abusive and offensive and still stay within the limits of the law.

I share the Minister’s desire to protect community cohesion and, as I have said, her overall objectives on the Bill, but I ask her to reflect on whether the proposals will really have the effect she seeks or whether it might be smarter to withdraw what is a pretty dysfunctional clause and go back to the drawing board to see whether there are more practical ways in which we could unite on protecting community cohesion.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the passionate and high-quality contributions from the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak. I rise to address the issue of whether clause 4 should stand part of the Bill, because the Opposition believe that it should not. As we have heard, this is the so-called gagging clause, and colleagues will remember the significant discomfort about this provision on both sides of the House on Second Reading. It takes the Bill far beyond the existing consensus on combatting BDS actions that target specific states and into the realms of placing serious restrictions on freedom of expression.

Having listened carefully throughout our proceedings, I still cannot understand why the Government are so attached to clause 4. The road it takes us down is not helpful, and it will only muddy the waters in terms of what the Government seek to do. Let us be clear what clause 4 does. As we have heard from colleagues, it prohibits public bodies—yes, the entity but, in reality, the people who make it up—from making a statement that they would breach clause 1, were they able to, as a result of moral or political disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct. It is one thing to say that they cannot do it; now, they cannot even say that they would wish to—they cannot even talk about it.

We have heard the Minister’s qualification, and I will turn to it shortly. However, we must assess what is on the face of the Bill, which is a really bizarre limit on freedom of expression and contrary to the British values on which we pride ourselves. I know that there are Conservative colleagues who pride themselves on being free speech champions—indeed, it is a big part of what they do in this place and online—and I say to them that this may well be their moment to prove that.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who spoke so powerfully on Second Reading about her experiences fighting the British National party and about why this clause cannot stand. She said:

“arguments are never won by suppressing democratic debate”.—[Official Report, 3 July 2023; Vol. 735, c. 615.]

I agree. That is a lesson that politicians on both the left and the right are still wrestling with—certainly in the online space—and need to learn.

There is also a wider problem. This is part of a broader range of efforts by the Government to curtail free expression—a legislative programme that has whittled away at the civic space over many years. That includes the Trade Union Act 2016, the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, the Public Order Act 2023 and more. The Bill adds to those as yet another unacceptable fetter on free expression. There is consensus to make progress on the Bill, but clause 4 is a particular sticking point.

We have heard from the Minister, in the evidence sessions and today, some admirable attempts to clear this up. She has said that this is a very narrowly understood restriction and that individuals who may be a decision maker on one day can talk in a personal capacity on another, when they are not making the decisions. I think that fails on three fronts.

First, that is not what it says on the face of the Bill. Clause 4(1) states that a statement of intent to “contravene section 1”, were that permissible, is not allowed and, at line 15, the words “(in whatever terms)” are added. I cannot square “in whatever terms” with what the Minister has said. If someone was on a television programme, could they have a disclaimer and set aside the “in whatever terms” provision? I do not think those two things sit together, and I feel confident that an enforcement authority relying on judicial review for oversight would fall back on what is on the face of the Bill, rather than what we have heard.

Secondly, I would argue that a person who is a decision maker because they lead a local authority, is a cabinet member or is even, perhaps, a member of the council or a Mayor is always a decision maker. I do not think that they can just turn it off or on. I do not think that saying that is credible. I know that when people overreach in what they say on social media or in the media more generally, they might try to disassociate themselves from it in an attempt to shield their colleagues, but I do not think they get much shrift in that. Never mind when we get to the conflation where—we have current precedent—a leader of a council is a Member of Parliament. We also have recent and multiple examples, including one that lasted a significant period, where a Member of Parliament was also an elected Mayor. Are they fettered from talking about foreign policy in debates in this place? Can they take off those hats? I do not believe that they credibly can.

Finally, and this is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, we heard on Second Reading, and we have heard in Committee, that the purpose of the clause is to stop decision makers adding to or creating a situation where a community, particularly a minority one, is made unsafe. This is important, and the evidence from the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies of British Jews brought that home. What the Minister has said in Committee, however, is that a decision maker could essentially say whatever they want, up to the point of advocating a boycott, and avoid that harm. As my hon. Friend says, it implies that a person can stand up and say anything they wish, in the most inflammatory terms, but that would not make people feel or be less safe. All that would do that would be the final phrase, “And I think we should boycott them.” I would say that the 200 words of inflammatory speech—of conspiracy theories and racist or hateful language—is where the harm is.

The clause does not add anything to the Bill, which leads us to our problem. We are being asked by the Government simultaneously to accept that the provision is broad enough to be impactful and to protect from harm, but narrow enough, as the Minister says, to apply in only a very small number of cases at a very small moment in time. I would say that those two things cannot be true together. The clause does not have to exist for the Bill to operate, which is why I believe we can safely vote against it without harming the overall goal.

--- Later in debate ---

We have all probably been lobbied by universities, and some have told me that this would somehow infringe on freedom of speech and freedom of research. Not a bit of it. It is only when they are making decisions about buying goods or services from Israel, or other Government policies, that that would come into operation.

[Steve McCabe]

The hon. Gentleman and I share a lot of common ground on various foreign affairs issues. I have been reflecting on what he is saying. He and I both take the view that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps should be banned, and we would like to see the Government act urgently on that. In the absence of a ban, if we were to go one step further and think of other ways in which we might be able to impact on the IRGC, would it be outrageous to say, “If it were legal to do so, I would do this and this”? Why would that be a breach?

[Bob Blackman]

I could call the hon. Gentleman my hon. Friend because we co-operate on many issues. As representatives we can speak out and ask for a change in the law, but it is not right for us to lobby organisations, individuals and public bodies to break the law. That is what is covered in the clauses. With respect, I think the wording could be cleverer or better. I am one of those individuals who passionately believes in free speech. I passionately believe that people in a democracy and elsewhere should be allowed to say what they believe. I share the sentiments expressed on Second Reading by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who has fought the British National party. Whenever we see extreme views with which we all disagree, we need to expose them in public and defeat them in an argument, rather than push them underground. My clear concern is that people could undermine community cohesion inadvertently. They probably would not mean to do so. There is no issue with making statements and having debates in councils, Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. The issue is one of breaching the law in terms of procurement, including of goods and services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Felicity Buchan]

I agree. That is the distinction between representing a public body and speaking as an individual, even if someone is an elected councillor.

[Steve McCabe]

Will the Minister give way?

[Felicity Buchan]

I am going to go into the detail on some points, and then I will take questions.

This clause does not impact an individual’s freedom to express a view. It is clear that declarations of boycotts and divestments are divisive and undermine community cohesion. These types of policies have no place in public bodies. We have seen examples of public bodies making declarations to boycott and divest as far as the law allows. Recent cases of declarations of anti-Israel boycotts that are not intended to be implemented, such as in Leicester, Swansea and Gwynedd councils, have been strongly opposed by Jewish groups. Such declarations are harmful even where the law does not allow boycotts and divestments. Therefore, such declarations cannot be made under the clause.

We heard repeatedly in evidence that a declaration stating, “We would boycott were it legal to do so,” is enough to trigger community friction and antisemitism issues. For instance, in 2014, Leicester City Council passed a motion targeting the activity of the Israeli state with a boycott

“insofar as legal considerations allow”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Felicity Buchan]

This very much has the advantage of preventing Leicester City Council from making such a declaration. So anyone representing the views of Leicester City Council and saying, “I am standing here giving the views of Leicester City Council” is not allowed to do that.

Let me move on to exact circumstances. Under the clause, individuals, including councillors, are not prevented from making statements of their personal opinions freely in their own capacity. Councillors are not a public authority and, therefore, they will not be prevented from expressing their support for or voting in favour of a BDS motion. For example, representations made by councillors during a debate that indicate that they would be in favour of their local authority engaging in boycotts or a divestment campaign will not be captured by the clause. It will apply only to statements made on behalf of a local authority. Therefore, if a local authority published the minutes of a debate or a meeting in which a councillor said that they would be in favour of their local authority engaging in such campaigns, this would not be captured.

As I have promised, I will make that distinction clear in the Bill’s explanatory notes. We want this to be very clear. There is a real concern that recent declarations of anti-Israel boycotts, even when they are not implemented in practice, have driven and contributed to rising antisemitism.

[Steve McCabe]

I want to return to the example that the Minister cited relating to a personal or public persona. She said that if Felicity Buchan said something in a personal capacity, that would be fine, but if she said it as a professor or representative of an organisation, that would not. If Felicity Buchan were an extremely well-known, recognisable public figure, which she may well be one day, is it considerable that her personal persona would be divisible from her public persona in any credible way that courts or the wider public would recognise?

[Felicity Buchan]

The Bill is not distinguishing between personas, individual or public. It is a sentiment that I am giving as an individual, as opposed to doing so as leader of my council or head of my university, representing my university. It is about the distinction between the individual and the public body.

I am coming to the end of my remarks. We will put that distinction into very clear guidance in the explanatory notes.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Let me start by saying that the growth of antisemitism on the streets and in our communities is absolutely terrible. It is affecting some of the youngest people in my own family, and it is dreadful to observe the impact that it has on young children. So I am completely with the right hon. Gentleman on that. My point is that the legislation is so flawed that it does not meet its intent. I would love to work with Ministers, and with Members across the House, to produce a piece of legislation that would tackle the issue that we know exists in relation to BDS, but would do so in a way that was not contentious. It does not have to be like this; we could do it in another way, and doing that as soon possible would be a really good thing to do.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Surely this is the point that my right hon. Friend is making. Surely the answer to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) is that a good time would be a time when those of good will had had a sufficient opportunity to engage in the necessary discussions to find a consensus that would lead to an acceptable and sensible piece of legislation.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

My hon. Friend makes a very valid point, and I am grateful to him for his intervention.

I do feel really emotional about today. It is, I think, an emotional day for many of us in the Chamber. Let me just say this to the Secretary of State. He is trying to put forward legislation in the name of the Jewish community, but he is not doing so in my name, or in the name of literally thousands of people I talk to here in the UK who are all good Jews, proud of their Jewish identity. I also know from my conversations with family, friends and colleagues in Israel that there are many there who also think that this is a poor piece of legislation. I plead with the Secretary of State please, please to withdraw the Bill, which I think would be more damaging than helpful, and to engage in the sort of debate that has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), which could bring us to a mutually agreed conclusion, reaching the objective that we all want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)]

I welcome this Bill, which fulfils a manifesto commitment and restates and protects the Government’s foreign and trade policy prerogatives by preventing local authorities and other public bodies from pursuing politically motivated foreign policy objectives of their own. Some have said that the Bill would limit free speech, but that is not correct because individual councillors and public bodies can still say whatever they like as private citizens, as long as that speech is lawful. But local councils have no democratic mandate to use their control of taxpayers’ funds and assets to create their own foreign policy or to express divisive opinions that undermine social cohesion in the communities for which they are responsible.

We have heard devolution spoken about in the Chamber. I am a supporter of devolution, but the whole point is that certain powers are devolved and certain powers are not. When my constituents go to the ballot box at local elections, they vote for the candidate who they think is the best person to ensure regular bin collections, well-maintained roads or social care; they are not voting on foreign policy, defence policy or income tax rates, because these are nationally reserved issues for the Westminster Government. It is therefore unjustifiable for local authorities to pretend they have a democratic mandate to use ratepayers’ money to signal their own foreign policy positions. This Bill does not restrict free speech; rather, it restricts public bodies from undermining policies decided nationally by a national Government elected in national ballots.

None of the amendments we are debating today would enhance the Bill, and in fact some are intended to make it unworkable. Amendment 4, for example, would make the pension scheme divestment provisions unworkable, and amendments 7 and 21 seek to remove an important clause relating to Israel. These amendments miss the crucial point of the Bill and the reason why it is being brought forward: all recorded recent examples of public bodies pursuing boycotts against foreign states or territories have been against Israel.

4.45 pm

BDS, which we have heard about extensively in today’s debate, is unique in its targeting of the world’s only Jewish state. The BDS movement is not a harmless, peaceful movement; it has alarming links to extremists, including the Hamas terrorist group, which have just committed probably the worst crimes in my lifetime—the worst mass killing of Jews since the holocaust. Public bodies funded by UK taxpayers should not be expressing public support for the divisive ideology advanced by the BDS movement. Its founder has, indeed, repeatedly expressed his opposition to Israel’s right to exist as a state of the Jewish people and has endorsed Palestinian armed resistance. When public bodies seek to undermine British foreign and trade policy and choose to do that only for matters relating to Israel, it gives legitimacy to and encourages the sort of appalling antisemitic protests and attacks we have seen over the past few weeks.

Let me take my home city of Sheffield as an example. In 2019 the council passed a motion regarding its position on Palestine; it had nothing to do with the council’s responsibilities as a local authority, but everything to do with its attempt to signal its anti-Israel political views. And in under a week’s time, on 1 November, the Green party councillors will put forward a motion entitled “Stopping the Genocide in Gaza” that makes no mention of Hamas and their terrorism.

Since the horrific terrorist attacks on Israel by Hamas, we have seen some shocking scenes on the streets of Sheffield: the Israeli flag torn down from the town hall; antisemitic chants on our streets; even a roadblock set up by supporters of Hamas, intimidating drivers and asking for money. I find it unbelievable and shameful that, after witnessing the despicable attacks, torture and rapes of Jewish civilians, such actions can take place in Sheffield, supposedly a “city of sanctuary”. It is very difficult for the Jewish community in Sheffield to feel safe when the local authority—the official elected body—appears to align itself with hard-line anti-Israel movements.

That is why we need this Bill: because yet again Israel and the Jewish people are being singled out and subjected to discrimination across this country and across the world. This singling out of Israel, the only democracy in the middle east, is just another form of the world’s oldest prejudice. Of course the Government of Israel can be criticised by British citizens, as can any Government in the world, but it is unacceptable for local authorities and public bodies to abuse their position to make divisive political interventions for which they have no democratic mandate. That is why I support this Bill going forward unamended.

[Steve McCabe]

I want to begin by saying that I am not sure it is helpful to link these proceedings with the current crisis in Israel and Gaza, which is what some have sought to do in this debate. I think we should be careful about that and I want to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for the tone she adopted in her opening remarks and for her call for sensitivity and moderation in our approach to this issue.

The nature of the BDS campaign is to promote anti-normalisation: it encourages the notion that there should not be contact, trade, exchange, negotiation, or even dialogue with Israel. The founder of the BDS movement has repeatedly expressed his view that the Israeli state should not exist. For me, the aims of the movement are clear. Consequently, I am utterly opposed to the aims of BDS, and I believe that they are as detrimental to the interests of the people of this country as they are to the people of Israel and the Palestinians.

When I hear people talking about the BDS movement, I often think they completely misunderstand the exact nature of our relationships with Israel in trade, medicines, security and technological exchange, and how people in this country are kept healthier and safer as a result. I am therefore utterly opposed to BDS. Not only does it target Israel and hurt the Palestinians, it is also completely detrimental to the interests of the people of this country.

Just in passing, as a Birmingham MP, I want to refer to the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis), who is unfortunately no longer in his place. I want him to know that Veolia still has a contract with Birmingham City Council despite his great efforts to suggest that Birmingham was responsible for Veolia pulling out of Israel. I think he rather overstated the case.

I say to the Secretary of State and to the Minister, who was extremely courteous and reasonable throughout Committee, that after so many hours in Committee and such a period for reflection I am really disappointed that we have had so little movement from the Government on Report. I hate to say this, but I find it hard not to conclude that the aims and arguments of BDS may not be the total priority. I hope that I am wrong, and I hope that people can demonstrate that to me.

I remain strongly of the view that the Government would be well advised to drop clause 3(7) altogether, as I think it will probably make things worse. I find myself in total agreement with the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) on that. I also remain unconvinced by clause 4(1)(b).

I support amendments 16 and 13. I also support new clause 3, which seeks to provide protection for religious dietary requirements. I think it was mentioned that one of the BDS movement’s proposals was to remove kosher food from supermarket shelves. I cannot believe that anyone in their right mind would think that a reasonable way to proceed, so I welcome the new clause.

We need a Bill to address the iniquities of the BDS movement. We need a Bill to unite people on both sides of the House who genuinely want consensus and broadly share the same aims. I regret that the Bill in its present form is not a piece of legislation that will achieve that outcome, and I urge Ministers to seek a consensus. There is still time to reconsider the approach.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

It seems to fall to me to speak last in the debate from the Back Benches—[Interruption.] Ah, excellent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) and I may be on a similar theme. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe); if I am not mistaken, we visited Gaza together some 11 years ago. I think one colleague mentioned that the question tonight is, “Which side are you on?” I do not think that is the question at all. If I am asked that question, my answer is always the same: I am on the side of the United Kingdom. That, I believe, is where everyone in this House should be —with the possible exception of those who seek not to be in the United Kingdom. That requires me and all of us to define the national interest in the context of that and any proposed legislation.

We can define national interest in different ways: deep family ties with Commonwealth members; our close cultural and economic ties with our neighbours in Europe; our shared values with fellow democracies; and our historical links with nations around the world. But we would place first, surely, our security and the potential vulnerability of this nation to terrorists and nations abroad who would damage us. It is therefore strongly in our interests to bring forward legislation that builds bridges for communities both here and abroad as part of our role as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, committed to the rule of law and promoting the values of free speech and transparency, strong in the belief, for example, of democracies sticking to international rules of engagement because to do otherwise risks us descending to the level of the thugocracies that exist elsewhere.

Where does that leave me and us in today’s debate? It means that we, without reservation, condemn the appalling acts of Hamas in their invasion of several villages and kibbutzes in southern Israel close to the border, their murder of civilians and their taking of hostages from, I believe, 41 countries. It means that we strongly support Israel’s right of defence. But it also means that we believe that the invasion of Gaza by air, let alone by ground, has inevitably already caused as many, if not more, civilian casualties in ways that have already almost certainly broken the rules of international engagement, including in terms of access to water, electricity, fuel, medicines and so on.

I understand and accept that all infrastructure in Gaza is compromised by Hamas. There will be buildings and basements of schools and hospitals and so on that Hamas are using, but that does not justify, for example, bombing buildings of refuge in the compound of St Porphyrius. Our position in this nation is for a genuine two-state solution that allows for both the state of Israel, a remarkable state with so much to admire, and a state of Palestine, with people have suffered since the Nakba of 1948 over access to lands sometimes seized illegally in the occupied territories, as United Nations law makes clear. That is the right position, however difficult to achieve and however abused by this Israeli Government’s continued deliberate building of illegal settlements in the occupied territories and by Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran’s refusal to allow Israel to exist at all.

This, then, is the relevance of a pro-UK policy to this particular Bill. Into this delicate landscape of increasing polarisation throughout the middle east strides the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill. I agree with the principle of reducing local government posturing on foreign policy—some of us are old enough to remember the Labour Lambeth Borough Council’s nuclear free zone—and the principle of the Bill can be reasonably in the national interest. I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak and many others on both sides of the House that the BDS movement is clearly antisemitic. It is clearly aimed at Israel. There is no question about that. But at the same time, when my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) advised that we should therefore stop everything regardless and support Israel and its Government’s statements on any issue regardless, I do not think that that is the case. Our support should not be at the price of explicitly giving the Israeli Government a completely free hand in their policy towards the west bank and the occupied territories, riding roughshod through UN Security Council motions drafted by the United Kingdom. Without them, the facts on the ground, as the Government like to call them, make a two-state solution harder and harder. Therefore, the motivation behind the drafting of amendment 7, which I am supporting so strongly, is not to bow down before threats by Hamas and those who wish for no state of Israel at all. It is not to support the constituent of mine who said to me, during a peace march—note the irony of those words—that Hitler had a point. No, I am not backing amendment 7 to support anything like that. I am doing so because there are many others among my constituents and other Muslims in this country who do believe in a two-state solution and who do want to see peace.