I beg to move Amendment 4, in Clause 3, page 2, line 17, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

This amendment would remove provisions allowing Ministers to amend the Schedule, via regulations, to add a description of decision or consideration, or amend or remove considerations added under previous regulations.

Clause 3 makes a number of exceptions, set out in the schedule, to the proposed ban on decisions made by public bodies in respect of foreign states—that is, it allows for certain conduct to be in scope for ethical decision making, such as environmental concerns. We support the principle of excepting certain powers from the Bill, and Members will not be surprised to hear that we are pleased to see labour rights there. However, the clause then bakes in a rather unacceptable and significant power grab by the Secretary of State over the ethical procurement decisions that a public body may wish to make.

Looking around the room, I see some Members who have been here longer than me and some who have been here for a bit less time, but I bet everyone will agree that one thing we were not told before we came here was that while we thought we would be talking about great matters of state, we would end up talking about Henry VIII regulations. Whatever happens, all roads lead to this bit of the Bill. I am continuing that unbroken streak, though perhaps not at length, as this argument is made frequently.

Clause 3(2) will provide the Secretary of State or Minister for the Cabinet Office with the power to amend this vital schedule in which the exceptions are laid out. That is an eccentric and totally unacceptable and unnecessary provision. This Parliament is rightly spending lots of time on this legislation. We have taken oral and written evidence from witnesses and will have multiple debates in the Chamber. We have convened this Bill Committee and will go through the Bill line by line, and then this process will be repeated in the other place. That is so we get the provisions right.

What we are being asked to do in the light of clause 3 and the schedule is to divine whether we think the range of exceptions is right. Is it broad enough? Is it too broad? Should we add any more? Should we take any out? That is the purpose of Parliament and parliamentary scrutiny. Yet we are being asked to put a provision in the Bill that the Secretary of State can just change that anyway via secondary means. That creates an unacceptable imbalance between the Executive and the legislature.

The problem is best understood in contrast to subsection (5) because that is a mirroring provision. It allows the Secretary of State to add or remove countries from the list of places that public bodies may boycott. We have not sought to amend that, because we know from recent painful experience that foreign affairs have a habit of moving on, and there must be an opportunity for the Government of the day to make changes swiftly. That is entirely reasonable in the case of foreign affairs and entirely unreasonable in the case of exempted activities, because they will not change quickly. Environmental and labour concerns are anchor issues that will dominate debates long after all of us are gone. The Secretary of State and the Government more generally do not need the power to vary that quickly.

If we do not accept the amendment and we accept what is in the Bill, what all colleagues—Opposition and, frankly, Government Back Benchers too—are being told is, “Do all the due process, but don’t worry; we will just change it later if we fancy it”. That is not good enough in a parliamentary democracy, and we should delete the provision today.

I will make just a short contribution, if I may. I associate myself with the comments of our Shadow Minister. The matters covered by the Bill relate to issues of fundamental importance: the interpretation of UK foreign policy and the ability of public bodies to respond. We live in uncertain times, and the UK’s position as an influential country on the world’s stage will understandably need to change in response to events in many areas of instability. In those circumstances, it would be fundamentally wrong for Ministers to reserve to themselves the power to amend the schedule in the Bill without returning to Parliament and giving MPs and, indeed, interested parties the opportunity to scrutinise and, where necessary, object to it. That is why I support Amendment 4.

I will speak briefly about subsection (7), and in particular about amendments 5 and 6, tabled by my colleagues. As I understand it—

Order. To be helpful, they come later.

I have jumped the gun—how unusual!

By all means continue, if you have something further to say.

No, I think I will wait. Thank you, Sir George.

Amendment 4 would remove the power granted to the Secretary of State to amend the schedule so as to make exemptions to the ban for certain bodies and functions and certain types of considerations, and to amend or remove regulations made under those powers.

The power is necessary to ensure that the ban can evolve over time and operate as intended. The Bill rightly applies to the full range of public authorities. That is necessary to ensure that we have a consistent approach to foreign policy and to stop public authorities being distracted from their core duties by divisive debates and policies. In the event that the ban has unintended consequences for a public authority and impacts on its ability to deliver its core functions, however, this power will allow the Secretary of State to exempt the body, or a function of that body, from the ban via a statutory instrument. The exercise of the power will be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses.

The power will also allow the Secretary of State to exempt certain types of considerations from the ban. That may be necessary if the Secretary of State needs to react quickly to international events. In the drafting of this legislation, my officials have been careful to ensure that the Bill applies only to appropriate bodies and types of considerations. However, the Government may also decide that a certain consideration should be made exempt from the ban so that the Bill can operate as intended. The Secretary of State requires the power so that he can respond effectively to potential unintended consequences that the Bill might have on a public authority without the need for primary legislation. If that had to be done through primary legislation, a public authority might have its ability to carry out public functions hindered for an extended period. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Nottingham North to withdraw his amendment.

I am grateful for that answer, but I am afraid that the Minister has rather made the Opposition’s case for us. It is deeply concerning to hear that the purpose of the provision is about anxiety in Government concerning the possibility of a bundle of unintended consequences that could hinder a public body’s activities for a number of months, as has been said. That is the reality—we have said that from start to finish. This thing will set a fire. This thing will roll in ways that we cannot conceive of, because it is so broadly drawn and, in places, so erratically drawn. That is a reason for not proceeding with the Bill in this form, and for coming back together to produce—as we are all keen to—something that is less broad and wide-ranging, but delivering a solution to the problem that we are seeking to tackle.

The Minister’s argument is not for retaining subsection (2), but for revisiting the provisions. I therefore hope that, having said that, she will reflect on the fact that she discussed the great anxiety about the unintended consequences of the Bill. That is what we should be addressing, instead of just giving yet more powers to Secretaries of State to act as they wish. I will press the Amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: 15, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, leave out paragraph (b).—(Ms Qaisar.)

This amendment, and Amendments 16 and 17, seek to remove Scotland from the extent of this Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

I beg to move Amendment 2, in Clause 3, page 2, line 40, at end insert—

“(4A) Section 1 does not apply to a decision which has been made in accordance with a Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights.

(4B) A Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights—

(a) is a public authority’s policy criteria relating to disinvestment in cases concerning contravention of human rights; and

(b) must be applied consistently by the public authority to all foreign countries.

(4C) Within 60 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish, and lay before Parliament, guidance on the form, content and application of Statements for the purposes of this section.

(4D) Public authorities must have regard to the guidance referenced in subsection (4C) when devising a Statement.”

This amendment would exempt public bodies from the prohibition in section 1, where the decision has been made in accordance with a Statement of Policy Relating to Human Rights. A Statement may not single out individual nations, but would have to be applied consistently, and in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State.

We heard on Second Reading, and again today, that the Government want to put disapproval of the conduct of foreign states and their territories beyond the scope of competent activity for local public bodies, in order to stop public bodies taking partial and potentially harmful stances. However, this Bill is akin to using a nuclear weapon to crack that nut. We have just heard from the Minister that the Government are so concerned about the unintended consequences the Bill may have that they are having to reserve the powers to change it quickly later, lest a public body be shut down for a number of months. The Committee just accepted that change, but it is yet another power grab by the Secretary of State and it is heavy-handed in its enforcement.

Amendment 2 sets out an alternative approach. We have been clear from the outset that it is possible to achieve what both the Government and the Opposition wish to achieve but without the overreach of the Bill in its current form. Amendment 2 would allow a public body to produce a document that sets out its policy on procurement and human rights and for that to be developed in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State. This is a relatively long-held Opposition policy. Indeed, it is similar to an amendment I tabled to the Procurement Bill many months ago. It is vital that procurement decisions made with regard to human rights issues be applied across the board, not just to prevent unethical actions against specific states but to ensure that common actions have the greatest impact.

Such a statement of ethical policy would thus ensure consistency in how contracting authorities—or public bodies more generally—decide on such matters, and inconsistent application would be prohibited. The practical effect would be to make it unambiguous that if a public body does not wish to procure goods from Russia because of President Putin’s abhorrent human rights abuses in Ukraine, the law will be on its side. If the same body does not wish to procure services from Xinjiang because of the appalling treatment of Uyghur Muslims, the law will be on its side.

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. In our evidence sessions, we heard very powerful testimony from Uyghur society and the Uyghur people, who said that we really need to look at this part of the Bill. Does he also agree that it is very interesting that witnesses on the Government’s side support disinvestment for China, for the very reasons that he has just outlined?

I agree. After hearing that testimony, I reflected on one of the things that I love the most about my country—I think about this quite a lot—which is that we stand up for people who need it, whether by providing shelter or by never walking on the other side of the road. I see things through that prism. I think it is a really fundamental British value, and I am concerned that we will lose some of that. Of course, significant matters of foreign policy are the reserve of the Government of the day, but the issue should not just be left to Government Ministers. The outpouring of support for Ukraine, both in my city and across the country, showed that people take that seriously and want to have a role and a say—they want to be part of that process. That is part of building common cause, but I fear that this goes too far and will squeeze some of that out.

Our Amendment 2 makes our approach to the matter very clear. If a public body acts only against a particular state—for instance, the world’s only Jewish state—while not applying the same approach to human rights abuses everywhere, such actions would be illegal. Our amendment would not just ensure that there are consistent decisions and that communities are not singled out; it would also strengthen our country’s commitment to stand against human rights abuses all over the world.

Our country has always defended the fundamental, inalienable human rights of all people. Procurement and investment decisions are part of that, and we should not shirk that role when it is the right thing to do. The amendment would ensure that public bodies could still play their part and that the contemptible actions of those who target one state while looking the other way when abuses are committed elsewhere are finally prohibited.

As I said on Second Reading, our amendment could be technically deficient—I am never sure whether we are supposed to admit that in Parliament, but it is clear anyway. If it is technically deficient—after all, I drafted it, and am perfectly willing to say that it is the work of a human being—we are more than willing to work with the Government to find something that works in both principle and substance. I hope to hear from the Minister that there is willingness to meet us a little bit on this, so that we can tackle the problem that we are all trying to address.

I rise to speak briefly but strongly in favour of Amendment 2. The UK should be a beacon for human rights, not just here at home but in our foreign policy and our relations with other states. That can be done only on the basis of a consistent application of the principles we seek to uphold. It is not hard to do that when human rights abuses are committed by countries we are in conflict with. However, we must be ready to apply the same standards to countries we regard as allies and friends. That is not always easy, but if we fail to do so, we open ourselves up to accusations of double standards and hypocrisy.

Amendment 2 would exempt decisions from the ban that have been made in accordance with a statement of policy relating to human rights, produced by a public authority. The Secretary of State would be required to produce guidance on the content of any such statement, to which public authorities would be required to have regard.

Seventy-five years on from the signing of the universal declaration of human rights, the UK remains steadfastly committed to an open international order, a world where democracy and freedoms grow and where autocracy is challenged. We put open societies and the protection of human rights around the world at the heart of what we do. That includes our membership of the Human Rights Council, robust action to hold Russia to account over its actions in Ukraine and at home, calling out China in Xinjiang, leading the call for the special session on the human rights implications of the conflict in Sudan, and our global human rights sanctions regime.

We continue to work with our partners, civil society and human rights defenders to encourage all states to defend democracy and freedom and to hold those who violate human rights to account. Our annual human rights and democracy reports are an important part of that work. This Government, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Ministers and officials continue to defend individual rights and freedoms, including through regularly raising concerns with other Governments. Our resolve to ensure that everyone can enjoy their rights is unwavering.

The international rules-based system is critical to protecting and realising the human rights and freedoms of people all over the world. We work through the multilateral system to encourage all states to uphold their international human rights obligations and to hold those who violate human rights to account. We are all in agreement that human rights abuses have no place in public supply chains.

I am concerned, however, that this amendment would give public authorities too much discretion to apply blanket boycotts. I also believe that the amendment is unnecessary because of the work that the Government are already doing in the Procurement Bill, which I will address in more detail.

The Procurement Bill already contains a robust regime for the exclusion of suppliers that are unfit to hold public contracts. That Bill sets out a wide range of exclusion grounds that target the most serious risks to public procurement, including modern slavery and human trafficking. The Cabinet Office has strengthened the way in which these terms are defined, so that suppliers may be excluded where there is sufficient evidence that they are responsible for abuses anywhere in the world, whether or not they have been convicted of an offence.

We have mirrored in this Bill the exclusion grounds in the Procurement Bill that pose the most significant risk to public procurement as exceptions to the ban, including for modern slavery and human trafficking. This means that public authorities will be allowed to make a territorial consideration that is influenced by moral or political disapproval of foreign state conduct in so far as it relates to one of the considerations listed in the schedule.

Moreover, there is guidance to help contracting authorities to address human rights risks, and there is well-established practice throughout the procurement process. That detailed and thorough guidance includes sections on managing risks from new procurements and assessing existing contracts, taking action when victims of modern slavery or human rights abuses are identified, and supply chain mapping, and it includes useful tools and training.

For the reasons that I have set out, this amendment is unnecessary, but I am also concerned that it would give authorities too broad a discretion to apply blanket boycotts. The amendment would allow authorities to exclude suppliers from entire nations without proper consideration of whether a supplier itself had had any involvement in the abuse. To exclude suppliers based solely on where they are located conflicts with the open principles of our procurement regime and would in some cases be contrary to the UK’s international obligations, such as non-discrimination requirements set out in the World Trade Organisation agreement on Government procurement.

As I have previously stated, foreign policy is a matter for the UK Government and not an issue for public bodies. It is not appropriate for public bodies to be producing their own policies on human rights in relation to other nations. This amendment would undermine the intentions of the Bill, leaving public authorities distracted by questions and debate about their human rights statements and the foreign policy that lies behind that. Many public authorities with no interest or expertise in such debates would come under pressure to produce statements or to explain why they did not have one. The discretion for public authorities, even acting within Government guidance, would mean a multitude and divergence of foreign policies across our public institutions and a confusing picture on the international stage of what the elected Government’s foreign policy was. My concern is that, were this amendment to be agreed to, every local authority and public body would feel the need to produce such a statement even though they felt that they had no expertise in human rights. I am concerned that it would increase the level of dissension and community friction rather than in any way lessening it.

I just want to clarify that nothing in this Bill affects private individuals and private companies and their ability, clearly, to boycott or divest.

That is the double standard in the Bill: private companies can do what they like, but public bodies cannot. If I understand the Minister’s line of argument, she is concerned that this Amendment could be used or abused by local authorities, but proposed new subsection (4C) specifically gives the Government the power to stop any blanket boycott. That somewhat negates her arguments.

Lastly, does the Minister agree with the position of any local authority that wishes to disinvest from China and Xinjiang in particular because of its treatment of the Uyghur Muslims?

The hon. Gentleman alludes to the difference between how we treat private and public bodies. There is a very good fundamental reason for that: we want there to be one UK foreign policy and we do not want other public bodies to be making up their own foreign policy or statements on such matters, whereas a private individual or private company is entitled to invest or divest as they see fit.

Our public bodies include people from countries all over the world, some of whom may have expertise relating to a particular country. Under this Amendment, if they highlighted human rights abuses in a specific country it could result in their public authority introducing a policy that is totally different from that of all other public authorities. Does my hon. Friend agree that such a risk should not be put in the hands of local authorities?

That is a very good point. This Amendment carries the risk of allowing a multitude of different statements on human rights, without any consistency, resulting in the community friction that we all desperately seek to avoid. That is why we are looking to boycott the BDS movement.

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. To address the point made by the hon. Member for Harrow East, the circumstance he outlined could happen now, of course. Part of the reason we are here and that legislation in this space is important is that it does not happen in that way, does it? As we heard in the evidence sessions, it almost exclusively tends to be targeted at Israel. I do not think there is any evidence to suggest that local expertise is causing a thousand flowers to bloom across public bodies. Actually, Amendment 2 would protect against that because it would give local authorities tools to say, “Look, we can only do this if we can engage in it across the piece, and we don’t think that that is core business.”

The Minister has expressed her concerns about distractions for local authorities. I know from my time in a local authority, during which we pushed back against a boycott of Israel, that these things flair up over a short period, a lot of energy goes into them, and it would have been much better to have had a fixed point. The amendment reserves the right of the Secretary of State to set out the form, so there would be no wild variance across all public bodies. It would give them a fixed point to anchor to, which would take a lot of pressure off the leaders of public bodies.

I am grateful to the Minister for making those points, but the reality is that we are in slightly different positions. I still hold out the hope—and I will be actively working on this between now and the final stages of this Bill—that our positions will become closer. At this point, however, given that the gap has not closed during this debate, I will have to press my amendment to a Division. We want to send a clear message that there are other ways of achieving this very important purpose.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

I beg to move Amendment 5, in Clause 3, page 3, line 10, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment removes the existing stipulation that the power to exempt a country or territory from section 1 may not be used in respect of Israel.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Amendment 6, in Clause 3, page 3, line 11, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).

This amendment removes the existing stipulation that the power to exempt a country or territory from section 1 may not be used in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the Occupied Golan Heights.

In its present form, the Bill will introduce a blanket prevention of public authorities’ ability to take into account human rights—the Government would say foreign policy—when making certain decisions. There can be exceptions; we have heard the Government mention Belarus and Russia. Yet for Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights to be exempted, it is not enough for a Secretary of State to bring forward a statutory instrument; primary legislation will be required.

We have a fundamental problem with the Clause, which is the conflation of Israel with the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights. Israel is a sovereign state; the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights are areas that have been occupied since 1967, and the occupation is deemed illegal under international law. In fact, it is not simply international law; the Government themselves have—until now, it seems—held that position very firmly. Let me quote from a fairly innocuous document, the Government’s guidance on overseas business risk, which was only published in February 2022:

“The UK has a clear position on Israeli settlements: The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights have been occupied by Israel since 1967. Settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

That has been the Government’s position, clearly and consistently expressed.

The hon. Gentleman presents a very powerful position. Members on the Opposition Benches have been told by the Government that the Bill should comply with Foreign Office policy. It seems that the Government are now deviating from Foreign Office policy. It should not be one rule for the Government and one rule for every other public body, should it?

There might well be something in what the hon. Gentleman suggests. There is, to be honest, a not-too-subtle change in the Government’s emphasis and in their exposition on this matter. Equating Israel and the occupied territories is unique in any British legislation, let alone any Government statement; it questions the long-standing position of the United Kingdom supporting a two-state solution based on 1967 lines.

There is also the question of international law. In his first written submission to the Committee, Richard Hermer KC cited the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice concerning the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. In his second written submission, he also made reference to the United Nations.

I respectfully remind the Committee that the UK is a founding signatory of the charter of the United Nations and is obliged to comply with Security Council resolutions. Security Council resolution 2334 very clearly expresses the concern about Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories; I want to emphasise that point. Operative paragraph 1 of the resolution states very clearly that the Security Council

“Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace”.

Operative paragraph 5 imposes an international-law obligation on all states to ensure that they treat the OPT differently from Israel. It states that the Security Council

“Calls upon all States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967”.

In summation, Clause 3(7) is incompatible with international law, for two very solid, basic reasons. First, it gives special protection to goods and services from both Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Moreover, it gives greater protection to illegal settlements in the OPT than it does to any other state in the world except Israel. That is quite incredible. If that does not suggest a change in Government policy, what on earth would? It seriously draws into question the Government’s commitment to international law—if that doesn’t, I don’t know what does.

Secondly, clause 3(7) fails to differentiate between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I do not want particularly to be in this Committee to make history: I want the Government to say, “Yes, we are being consistent. We have said this all along. We are not nudging Parliament to a change in policy. We are reaffirming where we stand.” That is the right decision to make. I am pleased to say that there has been genuine consensus in Parliament on the issue of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I do not want to see that consensus being weakened, and I certainly do not want to see it being shattered. I fear that this legislation is the thin end of the wedge.

One concern that needs to be looked at is cause and effect. When there have been attempts to put pressure on companies that trade with the occupied territories, it is often Palestinians themselves who lose their livelihood as a direct result. One reason I think this is so important is that it is for the Government to decide this, not for individual public authorities.

The other issue that needs to be on the record is that the occupied territories have been the occupied territories for thousands of years. There has never been a state of Palestine. It has always been occupied by someone. We could go back to the days of the Israelites arriving from Egypt; we could go through the Roman occupation; we could go through the Ottoman empire; we could go through Jordan occupying it until ’67. The reality is that they have never had the ability to exercise authority over themselves. It is very important, when decisions are made on procurement, that we consider all the causes and the direct effects of a decision being made to disinvest from the occupied territories. We owe it to the Palestinians to safeguard their livelihoods and interests. That is one reason why Clause 3(7) is so important: it protects them from unintended, although possibly well-meaning, consequences from particular public authorities.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly about all three paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 3(7). It is one of the more contentious parts of the Bill. I am not sure that I doubt the Government’s good intentions over it, but I doubt whether it will have the effect that the Government seek. If I can echo what the hon. Member for Harrow East suggested, for slightly different reasons, I also think it may have unintended consequences.

I am not entirely sure whether the Government have a single motive for clause 3(7). I have heard the Minister say that it is really an attempt to bind a future Government and ensure that a future Minister could not simply change the position through secondary legislation. To that extent, it is a safeguard. I am not sure any Government can bind a future Government—that is a principle of this place, so good luck with that one. I think it is probably unlikely. It suggests the Government do not have faith in the strength of their own legislation, if they think it would be that easy to dismantle.

The other argument that has been advanced for subsection (7) was made by a witness, the writer and broadcaster Melanie Phillips, who said that it was essentially a belt-and-braces job and that because the provisions of the Bill are general in how they address boycotts, we needed something exceptional and additional to deal with the situation in Israel. It seems to me that the whole purpose of the Bill is to address the BDS position in relation to Israel. That is why it was a Conservative party manifesto commitment, and that is why the Prime Minister made an additional promise recently. That is the purpose—that is why we are here—yet one of the principal witnesses and supporters of the Bill is saying that the Bill is not enough and that we must have an extra belt-and-braces position.

If in future it is going to be a norm for the Government to have such little faith in the legislation they put through this House that they have to make additional provision to reduce and limit the chance that any future Government may make changes, as well as making additional provision to address what the legislation was trying to address in the first place, we are going to end up with some very lengthy legislation, running into many pages. There is not a single clause in the Bill whose minutiae could not be subject to such a degree of scrutiny and might not therefore require additional provision to make it stronger.

I do not think that that is the best way for us to legislate. What we want is simple, clear Government intent that cannot be wriggled out of or evaded, that does what it says on the tin, and that the courts have no difficulty understanding. I do not know if this is just me, but I find it a bit ironic that we are considering a Bill designed to deal with the iniquity of the way in which the world’s only Jewish state is singled out and put under so much pressure, with so many people queuing up to try and destroy it—I think most of us are here to support a Bill designed to address that; that is certainly my position—and yet the Government are singling out the state of Israel on the very face of the Bill. I find that a bit ironic, to say the least.

I am fairly sure I understand the intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly in leaving out clause 3(7)(a) and clause 3(7)(b) and (c) separately, via amendments 5 and 6 respectively. I listened to what he said and I understand his point, but I wonder whether that might also have an unintended consequence. What if we were left in a position where Israel remained in the Bill, but the Committee had removed subsections (7)(b) and (c)? The intended safeguard in the Bill would then apply to Israel, but it would leave open the door for the other territories to be altered by someone in future.

We know that the intention of the BDS movement is to use settlements as the basis of its argument for a boycott of Israel. The movement sees settlements simply as a stepping stone; its intention is a full boycott of Israel. If I understood the hon. Member for Harrow East correctly, there would then be pressure to have provision for boycotts of settlements, which would lead to an argument about how to identify products or produce from those settlements. That would inevitably result in identifying the companies investing in the settlements, leading to demands for a boycott of those companies. It would lead to a boycott of Israeli companies and a de facto boycott of Israel; I think that that was broadly his point. I cannot remember whether it was the hon. Gentleman or one of his colleagues who raised the case of SodaStream in an earlier debate, but that is exactly the effect that this proposal would have: it would mean boycotting Israel and Israeli companies. The people who would suffer most from that outcome would be Palestinians.

There is a danger in separating subsection (7)(a) from subsection (7)(b) and (c). I understand the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly and exactly what he is concerned about—I share a great deal of that view—but the simple answer is that if the Bill is good enough to do what the Government say they want, we do not need clause 3(7) at all. We do not need belt and braces, or to try to bind the hands of any future Government, which I suggest we would not be able to do anyway.

The simple answer—to get consensus on the Bill and to get those of us who agree with the primary objective, which is to prevent the way in which Israel is being singled out and subjected to this pernicious boycott campaign—is to remove clause 3(7) altogether. I ask the Minister seriously to think carefully about the benefits of doing that, versus the potential disbenefits of leaving it in the Bill when it may well not achieve the objectives that I absolutely accept are her genuine intention.

Regrettably, no Palestinian voices were called to give oral evidence to the Committee—I wish they had been—but a number of respected and representative organisations have submitted written evidence. If we take notice of only one objection that they raised, although that would be a mistake because they raised a number of really valuable points, it should be this: the Bill should not treat Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the occupied Golan Heights on an equal basis. The exclusion raises serious questions about the UK’s commitment to a just two-state solution and its alignment with established international law principles governing the status of the territories, which—as noted in international law, norms and consensus—are illegally occupied territories. We should take note of such serious concerns, which is why I support Amendment 6.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Jacob Young.)

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.