Not specified in the given text - Clause 4

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The speaker has not yet provided detailed arguments or statistics regarding this amendment in the given text.

Mr. Gale proposed a series of amendments aimed at ensuring the Bill is scrutinised for its impact on Wales, religious dietary provisions, and preventing discrimination. He highlighted the need for detailed assessments within specific timeframes to gauge the Act's economic ramifications and ethical implications regarding food procurement and religious freedoms.

Commenced debate but was interrupted by Roger Gale. Chris Stephens’ position is implied to be critical of the Bill based on subsequent interventions.

Supports the Bill, criticising those who oppose it for being divisive. Argues that the Bill is necessary to combat rising antisemitism.

Intervened to express concern about the divisive nature of the Bill and its potential impact on community unity, especially amidst rising antisemitism and Islamophobia.

Questioned whether seeking consent from devolved administrations aligns with the Government's support for devolution, implying scepticism towards the Bill.

Suggested that instead of supporting the Bill, the Secretary of State should withdraw it entirely due to its perceived defects and impact on democratic principles.

She criticises the timing of the Bill's introduction as it coincides with a humanitarian emergency in the Middle East. She highlights concerns about the Bill’s potential to undermine ethical investment principles and cause legal disputes. She supports an amendment that would prohibit public bodies from targeting specific nations, such as Israel, in procurement decisions.

He questions Labour's stance on singling out Israel for BDS measures, pointing to actions taken by Welsh Labour Government regarding procurement linked to Israel and Palestinian territories. He seeks clarification on Angela Rayner’s position.

He defends his actions as a former local authority leader to cease procurement linked to Xinjiang due to human rights concerns. He asks if Labour’s stance on the Bill suggests that such steps were incorrect.

He agrees with the need for moderation in discussing sensitive topics but criticises the Scottish Labour leader's use of language regarding Israel and international law breaches, suggesting it was unhelpful.

Supports amendments to ensure freedom of speech is not violated by clause 4, which restricts procurement decisions based on political or moral grounds. Raises concerns about the omission of animal welfare considerations in the bill’s schedule.

Critiques the Bill as a poor piece of legislation at an inopportune time, given recent events. Argues that it will heighten tensions between communities and is poorly drafted. Cites 651% increase in antisemitic attacks from July to October. Emphasises the need for unity among MPs rather than division during crisis.

Lewis fully endorses Michael Ellis's arguments, highlighting the moral and ethical purpose of opposing antisemitism in light of recent terrorist atrocities. He supports the bill’s original intent to ensure local councils make value-based decisions rather than ideological ones.

Corbyn briefly intervenes to state that he has not put in to speak, indicating a stance against participating in the debate.

Mr McDonnell criticises the bill, arguing it is unconservative and undermines local democracy. He supports BDS as a method to influence regimes but believes current legislation discriminates against Israel. He calls for amendments that ensure fair treatment of different countries.

Mr Corbyn interjects, noting the reduction in freedom of speech for elected local councillors undermines representative democracy. He recalls past successes in persuading pension funds not to invest in regimes violating human rights.

Mr Percy supports the amendment, arguing that BDS campaigns are inherently antisemitic. He cites metrics showing that such activities drive antisemitism and highlights the focus on Israel compared to other countries. He dismisses concerns about community tensions and violence as reasons not to pass the bill.

Mr Hoare briefly interjected, expressing concern over potential damage to efforts for peace in the Middle East if the Government brings forward this Bill at a time when de-escalation is critical.

Lucas argues that singling out Israel is unhelpful, potentially damaging given recent events, and sends a message that some people’s rights matter less than others. She raises concerns about risks to fossil fuel divestment under current legislation if passed and suggests amendments to clarify these issues.

Supports the Bill against the backdrop of rising antisemitic incidents and violence in Israel. Outlines ISCAR’s success story, where Stef Wertheimer employs a significant number of Druze and Arab workers, challenging BDS's stance on normalisation. Mentions SodaStream's closure due to BDS pressure leading to Palestinian job losses, highlighting how such actions harm the very people they claim to support. Criticises BDS for their anti-normalisation charter and antisemitic campaigns that undermine Jewish communities’ right to self-determination.

The amendments seek to protect public bodies’ rights to make ethical decisions on matters relating to international law and human rights. Zarah Sultana cited examples of clear violations of international law in Gaza, Yemen, and apartheid South Africa. Local councils were instrumental in opposing the apartheid regime, and divested from companies operating in South Africa by 1985. She urged Members across the House to support the amendments.

Mr. Malthouse argues that carving out Israel in the legislation is unnecessary, as it fuels antisemitism and complicates efforts towards normalisation with neighbouring countries. He cites Jonathan Freedland's comment from The Jewish Chronicle to illustrate how the bill might be perceived negatively by critics. Additionally, he raises concerns about the legal implications under international law and proposes amendments that would allow for quicker responses to breaches of international law.

Mr. Simmonds supports the idea that local councillors elected on foreign policy platforms should retain their right to express such views freely. He believes that limiting these rights is ineffective in achieving its stated objectives.

Human rights groups have condemned the Bill as an attack on local authorities' ability to pursue ethical procurement and investment policies. The Bill protects Israel from sanctions, even though its actions violate international law. It contradicts UN principles on business and human rights. The Bill limits democratic rights of public bodies and undermines accountability for human rights abuses.

The Bill prevents local authorities from pursuing politically motivated foreign policy objectives. It does not restrict free speech but limits public bodies from undermining national policies decided by a nationally elected Government. The Bill is necessary to protect against divisive ideologies like BDS, which targets Israel and has links to extremist groups.

The aims of the BDS movement are detrimental to British interests. He opposes clause 3(7) as it may worsen relations with Israel. Supports protections for religious dietary requirements against the proposals from the BDS movement.

Richard Graham supports the principle of reducing local government posturing on foreign policy but argues against giving Israel a free hand in its policies towards the West Bank and occupied territories. He criticises the Bill for preventing scrutiny of Israeli settlements, which undermines efforts to achieve a two-state solution. Graham emphasises the need to hold Israel accountable while condemning antisemitism within movements like BDS.

Ms. Layla Moran supports amendment 7, arguing that it is inappropriate to debate the Bill amid ongoing violence in Israel and Palestine. She emphasises that the timing of the debate undermines community cohesion and exacerbates tensions. She cites rising antisemitic incidents as a consequence of the conflict, including defacement of imagery associated with Jewish children, highlighting the need for humanitarian intervention rather than political posturing.

Supports amendments to rectify anomalies within the Bill. Argues that clause 3(7) is illogical, unnecessary and potentially damaging as it creates an unacceptable equivalence between Israel and territories it occupies, which may cause international criticism. Also supports amendment removing constraint on free speech under clause 4(1)(b).

In an intervention, Chris Stephens recognises the importance of adopting a respectful tone and acknowledges the debate around including Israel along with the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Golan Heights in the clause.

In an intervention, Richard Graham questions the distinction made between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories/Golan Heights regarding prohibitions against boycotts.

In an intervention, Andrew Percy asserts that if the BDS campaign is acknowledged as pernicious and antisemitic, it should be outlawed wherever it occurs.

In an intervention, Greg Smith argues that allowing public bodies to engage in antisemitic BDS activities would undermine international agreements the UK is party to.

Asked Chris Stephens if he wished to press new clause 1 to a Division, indicating her concern about the clause's fate.

Announced that he does not wish to press new clause 1 to a Division and seeks leave to withdraw the clause.