中文
English
The government has been urged to rethink its plans to fine public bodies which initiate boycotts against Israel.
The proposals received initial backing but have been met with criticism from both Conservative and Labour MPs.
Communities Secretary Michael Gove said the bill would guarantee foreign policy remained a UK government matter.
But Labour says the bill undermines the UK’s longstanding foreign policy towards the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The party warned the bill also risked undermining support for people around the world facing persecution, as well as placing “unprecedented restrictions” on elected councils, undermining freedom of speech and having potential “widespread and negative impacts” on local authority pension funds.
The Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill seeks to prevent public bodies, including councils, from campaigning against, boycotting or sanctioning a particular international territory – unless that is endorsed by the UK government’s own foreign policy.
First published last month, it received initial backing by 268 to 70 votes after several hours of debate in the House of Commons on Monday.
Much of the debate on the issue has focused on boycotts of Israel and Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement calls for broad-based economic and cultural boycotts of Israel and Israel settlements – similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era.
Such boycotts are backed by Palestinians who see them as applying pressure on Israel to end its military occupation.
The Israeli government, on the other hand, sees the entire BDS movement as unjustly singling out Israel and describes it as antisemitic.
Speaking in the Commons, Mr Gove said there had been an “increase in antisemitic events following on from the activities of the BDS movement”.
He added that although there were “legitimate reasons to criticise the Israeli government”, the BDS movement was asking councils to “treat Israel differently from any other nation on the globe”.
“Nothing in this bill prevents or impedes the loudest of criticisms of Israel’s government and leaders,” he added.
But Labour – and a number of Conservative MPs – raised concerns about the bill’s potential impact on UK foreign policy.
Dame Margaret Hodge, who served in Labour governments under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, said the proposed legislation was “flawed, poorly drafted and will have damaging consequences both here and abroad”.
“The bill is not a considered attempt to bring about peace, provide better security for Israel or respond to the threats posed by BDS,” she said.
“It’s about using Jews as a pawn in the government’s political game.”
Conservative MP Alicia Kearns, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, said the government must remove references to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories from the bill.
She said the bill “essentially gives exceptional impunity to Israel”, adding: “This is something we should not give to any country and I would be standing here making the same request if any country was named.”
Longstanding UK government policy calls for an end to Israel’s military occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories as part of a negotiated “two-state solution”.
The UK has for decades endorsed the position of international law, under which Israeli settlements are seen as illegal – although Israel disputes this – and sees their expansion as an “obstacle to peace”.
The bill does not stop public bodies from complying with UK-wide sanctions, and it gives the government the power to make certain countries exempt from the restrictions.
For example, the government intends Russia and Belarus to be exempted.
But the bill does not allow the rules to exempt Israel, the Occupied Territories or the Occupied Golan Heights.
In doing so, it groups the three territories together, which critics including Labour argue undermines the UK’s foreign policy position by suggesting boycotting Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories or Golan Heights would be the same as boycotting Israel – despite the illegality of the former two under international law.
Critics have also raised concerns that the bill would limit campaigns against human rights abuses in other parts of the world – such as against the Uyghur in Xinjiang, China.
Ahead of the vote on Monday, the government spokesperson said: “Public bodies should not be pursuing their own foreign policy agenda.
“The bill will not hinder the robust action we are taking against Uyghur forced labour in supply chains as it contains exceptions to the ban for labour related misconduct, including modern slavery.
“The ban on boycotts does not apply to individuals, including publicly elected officials, when carrying out private acts that are protected by the Human Rights Act.”
A Labour amendment to the bill was defeated in the Commons by 272 votes to 212 – a margin of 60.
The amendment had sought to decline the bill a second reading over concerns it “risks significantly undermining support” for groups around the world facing persecution, for example the Uyghur, who are “currently victims of grave and systemic human rights abuses”.
It said it opposed any “discrimination” by public bodies in how they spend their money and says all public bodies must act “without bias” when making decisions on procurement and investment.