Israel (Promotion and Implementation of Divestment, Boycotts and Sanctions) Bill - First clause of the Bill

Swayne interjected to express concern that the Bill could be interpreted as introducing a form of thought crime, arguing it would be wrong in a free society if someone who disagreed with the provisions and continued to express their views after they became law were breaking the law.

Crabb interjected to support his right hon. Friend, stating that every single Conservative Member stood on a manifesto commitment to bring forward such legislation because they understand that there is something fundamentally illiberal and leftist with deep connections to antisemitism at the heart of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement.

Cherry interjected to remind the Secretary of State that the Bill goes beyond activities related to Israel and could interfere with freedom of expression, conscience, and belief. She questioned why a human rights memorandum has not been produced analysing the extent to which the Bill interferes with rights under article 10 and article 9 of the European convention on human rights, and article 19 of the international covenant on civil and political rights.

Clarke welcomed the legislation and questioned his right hon. Friend's thoughts on Richard Hermer KC, who has provided advice to the shadow Front-Bench team on this legislation.

Shannon welcomed the legislation and argued that local authorities should be working hard to support diversity and good relations, not ridiculing and condemning minority communities. He supported the point of the legislation being to ensure such incidents do not happen.

Asked whether any diplomatic post advised that the Bill contravenes UN Security Council resolutions.

Said the Bill is ill-drafted, may contravene international law, and could lead to legal challenges. Emphasised that the Bill might hamper UK’s ability to protect human rights.

Called for recognition of those standing against BDS and highlighted concerns about the bill's impact on speaking out for genocides in other regions.

Asked why there is no differentiation between Israel and occupied territories in the Bill, which could increase risk of antisemitism.

Pressed Secretary of State to consider alternative ways to deal with BDS without offering a 'glass jaw' and suggested working together to find better solutions.

Argued that the Bill makes the point that local government should spend taxpayers’ money on services for constituents rather than ideological issues.

Asked how clause 4(1)(b) is compatible with championing freedom of expression and tolerance as mentioned in the manifesto commitment.

Inquired about scenarios where local authorities might fall foul of the legislation due to decisions influenced by political or moral disapproval.

Asked whether Secretary of State has discussed FCDO lawyers' advice about the risk of UK being in breach of commitments under UN Security Council resolution 2334.

Ms. Nandy criticises the Bill for its broad reach and potential to undermine human rights efforts globally, including against Uyghur populations in China. She highlights concerns over clause 1's interpretation and the lack of clarity regarding a 'reasonable observer'.

Intervened to argue that Labour has not been consistent in opposing instances of BDS targeting Israel, despite claims by Lisa Nandy.

Defends the Labour Party's record on antisemitism and criticises the Minister for suggesting that opposition to the Bill equates to antisemitism.

Supports concerns raised by Lisa Nandy and references a public letter from Jewish academic experts opposing the Bill as damaging and wrong-headed.

Argues that increased presence of BDS on university campuses has led to rising antisemitism, impacting student safety and access to education.

Expresses concerns that the Bill weakens the UK's voice on human rights abuses globally, enabling regimes with poor records to continue without consequence.

Questions whether clause 1 would prevent ethical decisions regarding Israeli settlements that are illegal under international law, conflicting with UK policy.

Draws parallels between current debates and historical anti-apartheid campaigns in local authorities, questioning if similar legislation would have prevented ethical opposition.

Intervened to raise concerns about the Government's role in managing pension funds and potential compensation for losses due to the Bill's restrictions.

Questions Labour’s responsibility regarding instances of local councils acting in cahoots with BDS, suggesting it may necessitate a targeted approach like the Bill proposes.

Points out that the Bill undermines individuals in Israel who oppose the occupation of Palestinian territories, making it harder for them to make their case democratically.

Asks if there are any existing UK policies against goods coming from Israeli settlements in occupied territories.

Argues that referring to divestment or avoidance of products from illegal settlements as a 'boycott' is problematic, given these areas are illegal under international law.

Agrees that the Bill would disproportionately interfere with freedom of expression and conscience, violating articles 9 and 10 of the ECHR.

Stephens argues against the bill's impact on local democracy, human rights advocacy, and ethical trade practices. He emphasises Scotland’s historical commitment to social justice and international law, highlighting how this proposed legislation would stifle such efforts. He also expresses concern over the Bill’s potential to limit public bodies from boycotting products or services tied to Uyghur Muslim oppression in China or Kurdish human rights violations in Turkey/Syria. Stephens concludes by calling for the withdrawal of the bill.

Hywel Williams agrees with Chris Stephens, emphasising that Welsh policies on modern slavery and human rights are not considered in the Bill's impact assessment despite being devolved matters. He suggests that the Government should reconsider their approach before proceeding further.

Philippa Whitford views the Bill as an extension of recent legislation such as the Public Order Act 2023, which she believes has been used to stifle debate and hold the Government accountable. She argues that the new bill further diminishes democratic oversight and freedom of speech.

Nadia Whittome highlights the importance for public bodies to take principled stances against human rights abuses experienced by communities in her constituency, including those fleeing from Hong Kong and Xinjiang. She supports Stephens’ argument that the Bill should not restrict such actions.

Andrew Percy requested to interject but did not provide arguments or statements in this specific transcript snippet, so his position cannot be determined solely from the given text.

Supports clause 3(7) of the Israel (Wanna-be) Boycotters (Disqualification) Bill, arguing that it is necessary to address the antisemitic and racist nature of the BDS campaign. Emphasises that King’s counsels are not beyond criticism and highlights instances where BDS has led to attacks on Jewish individuals in the UK, including minors. Cites statistics showing a record number of 1,652 antisemitic incidents recorded by the Community Security Trust last year with an increase in minors both as victims and perpetrators.

Intervenes to express disagreement with clause 3(7), citing the Jewish Chronicle's view that while boycotting Israel is wrong, this bill is also not the answer and could harm British Jews. Points out that many Jews do not support this approach for protecting themselves from antisemitism.

The Bill is flawed, poorly drafted, and will have damaging consequences. It singles out Israel, increases anti-Jew hatred in Britain, pits the mainstream Jewish community against every other valiant human rights campaign, does not promote peace, undermines democracy with attacks on judicial independence, endorses extreme actions of the Israeli Government, stifles free speech, and is a centralising move at the expense of localism.

Local authorities have no business running foreign policy parallel to that of HM Government. They should focus on delivering local services and not hinder our country’s export trade, damage foreign relations or act against international or economic security. The Bill is necessary as the overwhelming focus of the BDS movement is Israel.

Elliott argues against the Bill's impact on local government, international law compliance, and the risk of legal challenges. She highlights concerns raised by various organisations about procurement rules and pensioners' rights.

Malthouse expresses concern over the safety of the Jewish community, the practical impact on organisations, free speech challenges, legal privilege breaches, and the chilling effect on debate about global conflicts. He also raises timing concerns given recent events in Israel and Palestine.

Critiques the Bill as harmful to civil society, rule of law, and freedom of speech. Expresses concern over its impact on minorities globally and adherence to international law. Emphasises the need for substantial reform or rejection of the bill.

Concerned about contradictions in policy, freedom of speech, and implications on discussions regarding human rights violations by foreign states. Expresses scepticism towards singling out Israel and Palestine, fearing it may worsen antisemitism and hinder free discourse.

The Bill undermines support for groups facing persecution. It restricts public bodies from making ethical decisions in investment and procurement related to human rights abuses. The amendment calls for a decline in the Second Reading due to its broad and destructive nature.

Supports the legislation as it addresses divisive BDS movement which targets Israel's existence, splits communities, and legitimises antisemitism. Emphasises that cutting ties with Israel would harm economic relations and job opportunities in Britain.

Mr McCabe is against efforts to delegitimise Israel and supports a simple bill designed to restrain the ambitions of BDS. He highlights the historical context of boycotts targeting Jewish people and argues that BDS seeks to destroy Israel's right to exist, impacting not only in Israel but also Jews worldwide. He discusses specific examples such as the impact on Israeli businesses, healthcare, security arrangements, and trade relations with the UK. Mr McCabe criticises the current Bill for being unworkable due to its focus on singling out Israel.

Mr Graham is uncomfortable with the bill as it stands, arguing that it does not fulfil the Conservative party's manifesto commitment to be country-agnostic. He expresses concern over the Bill’s impact on freedom and tolerance, highlighting specific clauses which exempt Israel alone from changes in government policy and restricts free speech regarding Israeli settlements in occupied territories.

Morgan opposes the bill due to its restrictive measures, fearing it will hinder public bodies' ability to take action against human rights abuses, such as in Xinjiang. She also criticises the Bill for limiting local councils' power and restricting freedom of speech.

Crabb supports the legislation, stating it fulfills a manifesto commitment to tackle antisemitism, particularly targeting the BDS movement. He argues against allowing public bodies to engage in boycotts and divestment based on ethical grounds, highlighting Labour's history of singling out Israel for procurement restrictions.

The speaker is against clause 3, arguing that it attacks local democracy and undermines the historical role of local authorities in addressing human rights issues. He cites the Local Government Act 1988 as an existing law to address such concerns without necessitating this Bill. The speaker also mentions his involvement with the anti-apartheid movement and draws parallels to current debates on Israel, emphasising that the clause is unnecessary and could prevent action against illegal settlements in Israel. He supports local authority actions over human rights but does not support BDS against Israel directly.

The speaker challenges the necessity of clause 3, arguing that it unjustly bans peaceful resistance to Israeli occupation. He supports Palestinian-led BDS as a legitimate form of non-violent protest and criticises Israel's illegal settlements as preventing a two-state solution. The speaker also expresses support for a one-state solution due to the impossibility of a two-state scenario under current conditions, advocating for national reconciliation and peace.

The Bill takes away political freedoms, criminalises thought and restricts moral judgments. It does not outlaw local authorities taking ethical judgments but limits those that the Government disagrees with. The Bill is flawed in its premise regarding criticism of Israel as antisemitic. He criticises the Government's support for the Israeli Administration during a time when progressive opinion inside Israel opposes it. Concerning pension policy, he questions the Government's right to dictate what local government pensions can do with their own money.

Supports the Bill for directly taking on the BDS movement. He argues that public bodies taking powers reserved for the Government has led to division and discord, isolating Jewish students. He cites studies showing a link between BDS activity and anti-Jewish hostility. The Bill provides balance in national conversation by safeguarding against rising discrimination. It will empower the Government to introduce secondary legislation on trade sanctions.

The speaker opposes the Bill, describing it as freedom-damaging and human rights-destroying. He highlights that the bill would prevent public bodies from making ethical decisions based on their own frameworks. Andy McDonald argues that it disregards devolution principles and international law obligations, specifically mentioning its impact on Palestine and environmental concerns. He also criticises the lack of moral compass in the UK government as seen during apartheid South Africa.

The speaker supports the bill but suggests amendments to clause 4(1)(b), expressing concerns about its chilling effect on freedom of speech. He mentions that while he will vote for the legislation, improvements are necessary in Committee stage. Simmonds highlights the need for clarity regarding what constitutes government policy and ensures decision-makers have a clear understanding of legal boundaries.

Corbyn argues that the bill is an attack on civil liberties, over-empowering police and restricting trade unions. He cites examples of past boycotts and support for anti-apartheid movements that would be illegal under this legislation. Corbyn highlights concerns from over 70 organisations expressing opposition to the Bill, including human rights and religious groups. He also discusses specific issues such as Israeli settlements in Palestine and the potential implications on freedom of speech.

Burgon criticises the bill for ignoring historical lessons where people have influenced government policy through democratic processes. He argues that the Bill attacks ethical investment and procurement, restricting public bodies from being influenced by moral disapproval of foreign states. Burgon raises concerns about the chilling effects on enforcement with potential huge fines and information compliance notices. The amendment would breach international law obligations according to legal advice provided to Labour. Burgon also mentions opposition from civil society organisations such as Quakers, Methodists, Muslim Association of Britain, TUC, Unite, Unison, and Amnesty.

John Martin McDonnell voted against the Bill, supporting the amendment because he believes in the right to boycott, disinvest, and sanction. He cited his involvement in multiple BDS campaigns for South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Palestine, China, and others. He argued that these campaigns would be rendered illegal under the Bill and that local government pension funds should have autonomy over their investment policies.

The speaker argues that the Bill undermines public bodies' ability to divest from harmful activities, curtails freedom of expression and democracy by gagging public bodies acting on conscience. He mentions the specific impact on the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, Rohingya in Burma, Palestinians in Occupied Palestinian Territories, Kashmiris in Indian-occupied Kashmir, citing their fears under this Bill.

Winter opposes the Bill entirely, recalling her anti-apartheid activism and highlighting its attack on democracy. She discusses how it undermines elected local councils' decision-making power and impacts devolved nations’ procurement policies ethically considering human rights. She also criticises the Bill's unique privilege towards Israel despite its human rights abuses.

Supports the Bill to address anti-Israel sentiment and racially motivated boycotts. Provides examples of such sentiments in Northern Ireland, including a letter from a Sinn Féin mayor pressuring local businesses to withdraw Israeli goods and incidents of intimidation against those who stock Israeli products or support Israel-related events. Emphasises that criticism of an Israeli Government is different from demonising the Jewish state.

Critiques the Bill for singling out specific states like Israel, proposes an alternative amendment that would ensure consistency in addressing human rights abuses across all states. Argues against the ambiguity and potential legal challenges the bill may face.

Describes the Bill as anti-democratic, anti-human rights, and an obstacle to social justice. Supports the reasoned amendment and calls for its rejection.

Supports Alex Norris's argument and sees the bill as part of a pattern of government actions aimed at stifling dissent and limiting democratic freedoms.

Clarified that the Bill applies only to public authorities and not private individuals or companies, except those exercising public functions. Emphasised that clause 4 prevents statements of intent to boycott or divest but does not prevent public bodies from disagreeing with the legislation. Reassured Members about country-specific exemptions through secondary legislation for Russia and Belarus.

Called for order in the House, reminding new arrivals to be courteous and not disrupt ongoing debates with noise. Commented on the generally well-conducted nature of the debate despite disagreements.

Questioned the Minister's statement, arguing that a specific exemption for Israel in the Bill contradicts its supposed country-agnostic nature. Suggested this needs further work during Committee stages.

Challenged the Minister's repeated assurances that the Bill does not affect certain territories, citing Foreign Office legal advice suggesting it could breach UNSC Resolution 2334. Demanded the removal of clause 3(7) to uphold international law.