The Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill - Third Reading and amendment to decline Third Reading

Fuller raised a hypothetical scenario about clause 3(7) potentially conflicting with UK foreign policy regarding Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, expressing concern that public bodies might be compelled to invest against their moral judgment.

Burgon questioned whether the Secretary of State was ashamed for restricting peaceful actions against violations of international law, arguing that the Bill undermines support for those facing persecution and is incompatible with UK foreign policy.

Hunt agreed with Gove's points but highlighted Israel as a unique case, arguing that councils should focus on local services rather than weighing in on complex international issues.

Crabb argued that the BDS movement was constructed as a weapon against Israel, citing antisemitism within it and questioning why other international issues have not garnered similar attention.

Rayner moved an amendment to decline Third Reading, stating that the Bill is deeply flawed and incompatible with international law. She emphasised Labour's opposition to discrimination and prejudice but argued that the Bill risks undermining UK credibility in supporting a two-state solution.

Mr. Malthouse expressed deep concern over the timing of the Bill and its potential impact on free speech, law courts, diplomatic relations with Arab countries, and British Jewry. He highlighted issues with the conflation of Israel with occupied territories in international law, restrictions on free speech, excessive legal burdens on public bodies, and the possibility that it could exacerbate antisemitism.

Mr. Stephens argued against the Bill's deviation from Foreign Office policy, the conflation of Israel with occupied territories, and its impact on devolution settlements in Scotland and Wales. He also raised concerns about environmental protections, workers' rights, and the rise of antisemitism without addressing these issues effectively.

The Bill does not respect directly elected bodies. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire, with over 22,000 deaths and 100 Israeli hostages missing. Local government-led interventions pressured the Thatcher Government to support South Africa against apartheid. The ICJ should be allowed to consider Israel’s alleged violations without UK pre-judgment. The Bill undermines local government, damages global standing and divides communities. We must advocate for a ceasefire, hostage release, aid delivery and work towards a two-state solution.

[Intervention] I extend my sympathies to the hon. Lady and her family. My council called for an immediate ceasefire, condemning both Hamas violence and Israel’s disproportionate attacks on civilians. The Bill restricts free speech of democratic institutions, threatening democracy across the UK.

The Bill stops public bodies from pursuing their own foreign policy agenda due to divisive campaigns by the antisemitic BDS movement. This includes councils banning books, imports and other discriminatory policies. Palestinian and Israeli businesses condemn the movement for strengthening extremists. The ban does not apply to individuals or private organisations. The Bill strengthens the Government’s diplomatic hand, encourages peaceful coexistence and fulfils a manifesto commitment.

[Intervention] My right hon. and learned Friend confirmed that the Bill will not apply to individuals, which is reassuring. It should also not interfere with British Government policy on illegal activities by Israeli settlers in the Occupied Palestinian Territories or existing sanctions.

Argues that the Bill undermines democratic principles, supports oppressors over oppressed peoples, and is contrary to international law. Mentions South Africa's legal case against Israel at The Hague for genocidal acts, drawing parallels with apartheid's fall due to BDS campaigns.

Supports the Bill as it ensures local authorities do not stray into national policy areas through divisive actions like boycotts. Highlights that despite pressure from BDS campaigns, most councils adhere to their constituents' views rather than international issues. Argues for maintaining freedom of speech while preventing unilateral targeting of Israel.

Critiques the Bill as harmful to Britain's reputation, human rights protections, and freedom of expression. Argues it weakens ethical considerations in procurement decisions and sets a dangerous precedent. Emphasises contradictions within Government policy regarding settlements and academic freedoms.

Calls for action against rising antisemitism, citing specific incidents of vandalism and business targeting. Emphasises the need to combat BDS movement as it incites division and undermines peace efforts.

Opposes the Bill for its infringement on civil liberties, citing historical examples where such legislation would have stifled international solidarity. Argues that it undermines devolution and limits democratic expression.

Supports the Bill, expressing personal dismay at the rise of antisemitism post-7 October. Emphasises the importance of recognising where antisemitic attitudes begin and end.

Clarifies that individuals are not restricted in expressing views but public bodies cannot abuse their position to undermine UK foreign policy or support explicitly antisemitic campaigns.