A Labour MP has called on the government to bring in their own version of “anti-BDS” legislation to stop local councils from pursuing policies that differ from Westminster on defence and foreign affairs.
According to the Daily Telegraph, several councils – including Dudley, Tower Hamlets, Lewisham and Islington – have backed motions to divest from British defence and security companies in response to demands by pro-Palestine activists.
The actions of these councils, some of which are Labour-led, contrast with the government’s aim to increase defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027.
Earlier this month, Thales, a defence firm previously targeted by pro-Palestine activists, was awarded a £1.16bn contract by the government to manufacture missiles for Ukraine.
British military figures have voiced trepidation at the action by some local authorities.
Rear Admiral Chris Parry, a former Nato commander, told the JC it was concerning that “some of our local councils around the country contain significant numbers of people who refuse to invest in the defence of our country.”
Luke Akehurst, the Labour MP for North Durham, hit out at the action by the councils.
He told the JC: "Disinvestment by public bodies such as councils from the defence industry, just at the moment when we desperately need as a country to scale up arms production and have increased our defence budget to do so, is pernicious.”
The former director of campaign group We Believe in Israel went on: “Councils should not have the right to set their own hare-brained and unpatriotic foreign policy that contradicts the government's priorities.”
Akehurst, who has previously served as a councillor in the London Borough of Hackney, said that the focus of councillors should be “on their core function of providing local public services.”
A Labour councillor from a local authority that has backed divestment measures, who spoke to the JC on the condition of anonymity, said: “Divesting from the defence industry isn’t just flawed – it’s anti-Labour.
"Across the country, UK defence companies provided skilled, unionised jobs, building technology that keeps us and our allies like Ukraine safe.”
They added: “It is totally unacceptable to claim to support Ukraine and stop financially supporting their fight. We need to pull in behind the Chancellor and support defence investments.”
Akehurst suggested that the government “come forward with its own version of the anti-BDS bill that was proposed in the last parliament”, saying that “at the time, Labour shadow ministers supported the principle of this but had issues with details of the bill."
The Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Maters) Bill – which became known as the anti-BDS bill – was brought in by the last Conservative government.
At the time, Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner said that while her party “completely opposes a policy of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel” it believed the bill was “deeply flawed”.
Akehurst’s proposal may find opposition from within Starmer’s cabinet.
Lord Hermer, who serves as Attorney General, was a prolific critic of the bill and said the measures in it would have “a profoundly detrimental impact on the United Kingdom’s ability to protect and promote human rights overseas”.
The then Matrix Chambers barrister said that the measures in the Conservatives’ legislation would “stifle free speech at home” and was “in certain respects inconsistent with our obligations under international law” in legal advice to Labour at the time.
Despite passing by a majority of 47 votes in the House of Commons last year, the Bill didn’t progress into law as it didn’t complete its passage through the House of Lords before the general election and, unlike some measures like the Holocaust Memorial Bill, was not “carried over” into the new Parliament by the Labour government
To get more Politics news, click here to sign up for our free politics newsletter.