← Back to House of Commons Debates
The Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill - Third Reading and amendment to decline Third Reading
10 January 2024
Lead MP
Michael Gove
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Community SecurityForeign Affairs
Other Contributors: 18
At a Glance
Michael Gove raised concerns about the economic activity of public bodies (overseas matters) bill - third reading and amendment to decline third reading in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
Mr. Gove opened the debate on the Third Reading of the Economic Activity of Public Bodies Bill, emphasising its timeliness in addressing antisemitism and upholding a united foreign policy approach for the UK Government. He acknowledged concerns about clause 3(7) but reassured Members that it does not contravene UK foreign policy or inhibit the Government's ability to take action against human rights abuses. Gove thanked all participants in the debate, noting their commitment to addressing antisemitism and striving for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Israel and Gaza.
Richard Fuller
Con
North Bedfordshire
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.
Richard Burgon
Lab
Leeds East
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.
Tom Hunt
Lab
Constituency not specified
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.
Stephen Crabb
Con
Pembrokeshire West
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.
Angela Rayner
Lab
Ashton-under-Lyne
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.
Kit Malthouse
Con
North West Hampshire
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.
Chris Stephens
SNP
Scotland
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.
Layla Moran
Lib Dem
Oxford West and Abingdon
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.
Dwyfor Meirionnydd
[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.
Michael Ellis
Con
Rochester and Strood
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.
Richard Graham
Con
Gloucester
[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.
Claudia Webbe
Lab
Weston-super-Mare
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.
David Simmonds
Con
Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner
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.
Andrew Slaughter
Lab
Hammersmith and Chiswick
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.
Nicola Richards
Cons
Crewe and Nantwich
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.
Alison Thewliss
SNP
Glasgow Central
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.
Miriam Cates
Con
Penistone and Stocksbridge
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.
Michael Gove
Con
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.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.